I am writing this latest blog post to provide some impression, thoughts, conclusions and other such meanderings on what I experienced in Heugenot this year at the Electro-Music festival. I have been to the festival now for two years although I trucated my first visit. What impressed me the most about the festival is that I found a group of people who did what I do that is make "electronic music'.
"Electronic Music" has been around now for a long time but clearly defining what exactly it is is perhaps left to better philosophers than me. However, what was clear to me was that what I was listening to at this festival was not "dance music". If anyone came to the festival expectiing dance music and for example listened to Richard Lainhart would be sadly out of there musical element.
I am a would be student of Electronic Music history. I believe it has its roots more in classical music than any pop movement although the difficulty with defining it today is that is has been entrangled with pop and yes, with dance music. But the odd thing is that for the most part, those who write it don't write dance music. I know I am not making sense here but I guess what I am trying to say ever so badly is that while some people who make other kinds of music would call themselves electronic artists there is an "electronic music" that is a true genre however broad and ill definted. That genre is what I heard at the Electro Music festival and why I felt at home there. With people who where trying to do a version of what I do whatever that is.
A little side note here with a purpose. Its funny. I support and truely appreciate what music therapists do. They seem so together in clearly defining what they do to the point of having a certification process. I also appreciate the difference between therapist and artist and at times, I also find that desire to clarity everthing in music therapy a weakness as well. It seems closed in on itself and unable to benefit from other directions that might help expand it and allow it to grow.
No I come to the point of this blog. The "whatever that is" part. One thing that can be said of classical music is that through each era, each incarnation, each century there has been a way to define it. A set of methods, practices, ect. As music came to the 20th century, those practices began to dissolve. Despite the attempts of serialism, classical music took many different directions including it's spinoff, "Electronic Music", at least that is how I see it.
But now we have what? Drone music, space music, new age, krautrock, experimental, ok, i'm not going to give an extensive list but you get the idea. Defining what it is that we do is very difficult. But more than that, talking about it is even more difficult. If you want to talk about Bach you pull out sheet music. There it is. OK, sure, there is some degree of interpretation but for the most part what a classical composer composes is sheet music (to illustrate a point).
What an electronic artist does is programming, finding new instruments, finding new controllers, layering sounds, again, the list could go on and on. So where to we from here? I don't know but perhaps this blog is an invitation to some to start talking about what is is that we do as electronic artists so that we can pull out the electronic music equivalent of sheet music (at least metaophoricaly) and for the reall great music proclaim: "I'd give it a 10 but you can't dance to it" and so it goes...
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
What's Old is New Again
I think sometimes in a world of quickly moving technology we often believe that if we just keep moving forward that things will improve. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't but as I a writing this blog, I am listening to an instrument made my Hammond called the Novachord. This instrument is truely haunting and beautiful. It reminds me of another beautiful instrument called the Ondes Martenot. It seems a strange turn of events that just recently these instrument have been revived both physically and in sample form. Hollow Sun and Sonic Couture both offer sampled versions of the Nova Chord and Sonic Couture has a sample Ondes. There is also the French Connection which is an actually hardware CV controller that works like the original Ondes. No doubt the design for the Haken Continuum is at least inspired by this instrument.
A Twitter friend reminded me recently in a great blog just how useful "old school" techniques can be. In her case, she found a variation on a "old school" roladex a very effective way to keep track of business cards. Both the Novachord and the Ondes Martenot are both very old school and yet, by modern standards perhaps they don't have the range of many modern synthesizers but they also don't have the annoying property that they also sound like every other synthesizers. In a musical world that claims to be cutting edge, I often find that the real game if you want to make the big bucks is sound almost like everything else but put a little twist in it, not to much, so your music gets a notice.
For me, I have been enjoying some instruments from the past, "old school" instruments that don't sound the same. I guess I like them because I feel inspired by them. Hopefully I can use them in my music in the future and break away from the pack by going back to the future, sampled "old school" here I come.
A Twitter friend reminded me recently in a great blog just how useful "old school" techniques can be. In her case, she found a variation on a "old school" roladex a very effective way to keep track of business cards. Both the Novachord and the Ondes Martenot are both very old school and yet, by modern standards perhaps they don't have the range of many modern synthesizers but they also don't have the annoying property that they also sound like every other synthesizers. In a musical world that claims to be cutting edge, I often find that the real game if you want to make the big bucks is sound almost like everything else but put a little twist in it, not to much, so your music gets a notice.
For me, I have been enjoying some instruments from the past, "old school" instruments that don't sound the same. I guess I like them because I feel inspired by them. Hopefully I can use them in my music in the future and break away from the pack by going back to the future, sampled "old school" here I come.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Monkey See, Monkey Do
Anyone who follows my tweets may have noticed that I have been posting a lot about some pretty esoteric instruments. Glass harmonicas, Cristal Baschetts, glass bowls, Boomwhackers and PVC instruments, bowed gamelons and other exotic and unusual instruments. So why am I so interested in these instruments? For a few reasons. An important one is that they are not expected. Modern pop musical culture creates entire genres from certain sounds, the hi gain distortion guitar sound of metal, the short percussive sounds and rhythms of hip hop or the deep bass of dub step. It's natural for us to like things that we are familiar to us and to copy one another.
One also does not need to look only to pop music. In some sense, classical music is based on copying styles and following the rules, coloring within the lines. Even serialism is an attempt to recreate a new set of rules. However, the great composers worked within a certain traditional framework but they did color outside the lines, sometimes way outside. 20th century classical is an example of this. It was not uncommon for these composers to use unusual instruments or even make their own. Messiaen looked to birdsong, eastern rhythms and instruments. Harry Partch made his own instruments.
Looking to the east for inspiration can also be found in jazz musicians who looked to the eastern musical tradition for new scales or the Beatles who introduced the sitar to listeners used to a stricly pop diet.
What I often find difficult in coloring outside the lines is that some listeners can't get past the difference. Handel for example was more popular in his time than Bach because he wrote music that was familiar and pleasing to the ear.
As for me, while it may not get me as many listeners, I refuse to imitate and monkey other musicians. I look to them for ideas but I don't let my music be limited by any genre. So, I hope that explains my unusual choice of instruments.
One also does not need to look only to pop music. In some sense, classical music is based on copying styles and following the rules, coloring within the lines. Even serialism is an attempt to recreate a new set of rules. However, the great composers worked within a certain traditional framework but they did color outside the lines, sometimes way outside. 20th century classical is an example of this. It was not uncommon for these composers to use unusual instruments or even make their own. Messiaen looked to birdsong, eastern rhythms and instruments. Harry Partch made his own instruments.
Looking to the east for inspiration can also be found in jazz musicians who looked to the eastern musical tradition for new scales or the Beatles who introduced the sitar to listeners used to a stricly pop diet.
What I often find difficult in coloring outside the lines is that some listeners can't get past the difference. Handel for example was more popular in his time than Bach because he wrote music that was familiar and pleasing to the ear.
As for me, while it may not get me as many listeners, I refuse to imitate and monkey other musicians. I look to them for ideas but I don't let my music be limited by any genre. So, I hope that explains my unusual choice of instruments.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Glass Works
I have rarely reviewed any synthesizers or sample libraries but I wanted to at least say a few words about Sonic Couture's "Glass Works". "Glass Works" is a library of Kontakt instruments based on three rather unique and fascinating instruments. Instruments that so fascinate me that I am still in the midst of doing research on them and there is a lot out there to look at.
One instrument, the oldest of the three, owes its origins to a little musical trick that children learn when they are young. That if you take a crystal wine glass, wet your finger and rub it around the edges, you get a most pleasant sound. By varying the amount of water in the glass, the frequency of the tone changes.
Many musician's and composers toyed with this idea but perhaps the most renowned is Benjamin Franklin who actually designed a very effective design and made this instrument more accessible. Composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Handel and Richard Strauss all wrote compositions for it. The rather mysterious figure of Mesmer better known for his hypnotic explorations also played one and attributed to it certain unusual mysterious effects.
Then we move to 20th century American classical music and the wild and sometime delightfully wacky world of Harry Partch. Partch not only composed music but made his own instruments including an instrument called "The Boo" and the instrument that made it into the "Glass Works" library, "The Cloud Chamber Bowls".
You can give them a try here. Have fun!
musicmavericks.publicradio.org/features/highband/cloud.html
Finally moving onto "Le Cristal Baschet". An instrument which is as much instrument, art and acoustics experiment all wrapped into one, a statement in itself. It is designed by Frances Baschett based on chromatically tuned glass rods:
They have been used by various composers including, just to name a few, Thomas Bloch (who has written for many interesting instruments including the Ondes Martenot), Toru Takemitsu, Francois Bayle (who interestingly enough studied with Karlheintz Stockhausen, Pierre Schaeffer and Olivier Messiaen). Messiaen wrote music for the Ondes Martenot (which can also be found in one of Sonic Courture's libraries), Luc Ferrari (influenced very much by Edgar Varese). Clearly one can see the strong connection in that twilight between 20th century avant guarde and modern electronic music (pre electronica)
So that's a sort of brief tour of these instruments. What I find interesting is that fact that Le Cristal Bachett is really more of a concept if you will. Each Cristal Baschet sounds different related to the shape. Art and music seem to be strangely joined here as well as science. Here is there web site:
www.structuresonore.eu/
What surprises me here it the influence of Pierre Schaeffer who believed and wrote about a philosophy about how to categorize sound based on a broader philosophical school of phenomenology (of which I am an advocate). So many ideas seem to intersect here, so many intellectual and musical streams joined in a complex weave.
What makes glass instruments unique is that they are "non linear". I could give you a lot of definitions for this that would only make partial sense. What this really means is that a simple action such as moving ones finger over glass, can create a complex sound. I pulled a file of a glass harmonica off of Freesound last night and then magnified it. I was blown away. It is highly complex. Elements of AM and FM and waveshaping. Some of the papers I have read on the glass harmonica range from wavegides, to resonators to complex non linear physical models. The proof is really in the listening and all of these instruments have a haunting sounds.
Of course, Sonic Couture has now made it possible to change them in real time and create complex performances. I am impressed by this library of sounds not just because it sounds good but that it reflects a depth of thought that I rarely see from other synthesizers and sample libraries.
So, that is my humble review or reflection. Call it what you want to if you get a chance, read about these instruments. I think you will be amazed or dare I saw enchanted, mezmorized and haunted.
One instrument, the oldest of the three, owes its origins to a little musical trick that children learn when they are young. That if you take a crystal wine glass, wet your finger and rub it around the edges, you get a most pleasant sound. By varying the amount of water in the glass, the frequency of the tone changes.
Many musician's and composers toyed with this idea but perhaps the most renowned is Benjamin Franklin who actually designed a very effective design and made this instrument more accessible. Composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Handel and Richard Strauss all wrote compositions for it. The rather mysterious figure of Mesmer better known for his hypnotic explorations also played one and attributed to it certain unusual mysterious effects.
Then we move to 20th century American classical music and the wild and sometime delightfully wacky world of Harry Partch. Partch not only composed music but made his own instruments including an instrument called "The Boo" and the instrument that made it into the "Glass Works" library, "The Cloud Chamber Bowls".
You can give them a try here. Have fun!
musicmavericks.publicradio.org/features/highband/cloud.html
Finally moving onto "Le Cristal Baschet". An instrument which is as much instrument, art and acoustics experiment all wrapped into one, a statement in itself. It is designed by Frances Baschett based on chromatically tuned glass rods:
They have been used by various composers including, just to name a few, Thomas Bloch (who has written for many interesting instruments including the Ondes Martenot), Toru Takemitsu, Francois Bayle (who interestingly enough studied with Karlheintz Stockhausen, Pierre Schaeffer and Olivier Messiaen). Messiaen wrote music for the Ondes Martenot (which can also be found in one of Sonic Courture's libraries), Luc Ferrari (influenced very much by Edgar Varese). Clearly one can see the strong connection in that twilight between 20th century avant guarde and modern electronic music (pre electronica)
So that's a sort of brief tour of these instruments. What I find interesting is that fact that Le Cristal Bachett is really more of a concept if you will. Each Cristal Baschet sounds different related to the shape. Art and music seem to be strangely joined here as well as science. Here is there web site:
www.structuresonore.eu/
What surprises me here it the influence of Pierre Schaeffer who believed and wrote about a philosophy about how to categorize sound based on a broader philosophical school of phenomenology (of which I am an advocate). So many ideas seem to intersect here, so many intellectual and musical streams joined in a complex weave.
What makes glass instruments unique is that they are "non linear". I could give you a lot of definitions for this that would only make partial sense. What this really means is that a simple action such as moving ones finger over glass, can create a complex sound. I pulled a file of a glass harmonica off of Freesound last night and then magnified it. I was blown away. It is highly complex. Elements of AM and FM and waveshaping. Some of the papers I have read on the glass harmonica range from wavegides, to resonators to complex non linear physical models. The proof is really in the listening and all of these instruments have a haunting sounds.
Of course, Sonic Couture has now made it possible to change them in real time and create complex performances. I am impressed by this library of sounds not just because it sounds good but that it reflects a depth of thought that I rarely see from other synthesizers and sample libraries.
So, that is my humble review or reflection. Call it what you want to if you get a chance, read about these instruments. I think you will be amazed or dare I saw enchanted, mezmorized and haunted.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Crossing the Streams
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)