PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2004-12-07 20:03, astroman wrote:

On 2004-12-07 16:45, Immanuel wrote:
...I could however see some nice aspects about a MIDI controller for violin

no chance ever to control what a violin virtuoso got under his (or her) fingertips - and no need to. I don't see any problems why the two forms of performing cannot co-exist.

cheers, Tom

I am talking about a MIDI pick-up for a violin ... not the other way around.

On 2004-12-08 15:24, braincell wrote:
A synthesizer *is* a real instrument grrrrr :/

It shure is. The thing about synthetic instruments being unreal is a total misunderstanding IMO. A marmelade jar can be an instrument, if you treat it like one. I bet the discussion some decades ago was about whether an amplified guitar was a real instrument ... it doesn't stand on it's onw, and it needs help ... from electricity. I guess the difference between a synth and a guitar is, that the sound generator in a guitar ... or even better ... a REAL acoustic guitar ... with a pizo-pick-up ... is a vibrating piece of metal, while in a synthesizer, it is ... a vibrating piece of metal (a chip, if digital, and something else ... probably vibrating too if analog).

Personally, I think music when bad, when we started amplifying it ... centuries (or even milleniums?) ago. That wooden box you see on all acoustic guitars, violins, violas, chellos, ... is in fact nothing but a highly colored and rather non-linear (both frequency-vice and amplitude-vice) amplifier Instruments like trumpets and trombones are really NOTHING BUT a highly colored amplifier with severe break-up patterns, whereas saxophones at least adds a sound generator. And why do we need kettles on drums now? Beat a goat, and ... oh no, the sound comming out may be too similar to, what a synthesizer (Flexor, anybody?) would produce ... and we can't have that ... that is just so ... synthetic.

By now, you have probably figured out, what my real opinion is. It is all just tools. As a musician, choose among what is awailable to you. If it doesn't fit your need, modify or change the instrument, or ... modify your need. Often it can be just as inspiring to let the instrument decide the need. Where does THIS thing take me? What can I USE it for? What does it INSPIRE me to do?

bla bla bla bla (waiting for one of Gary's 3-word conclussions to surparss my novel)

Immanuel

you said it.

A synth can be a very expressive instrument if it is programmed properly i.e use of MIDI controllers while sequencing - or you can have an 'orchestra' of say 5 musicians each with a keyboard and a control pad or 'expression surface' that could play the synths with GREAT expression -- yes the symphony orchestra is the greatest instruments of all certainly for human expression and interaction with the instruments - but synths could come close and there is greater sonic universe - far vaster than any orchestra. Classical could indeed be written for synths - forget the Stockhausen stuff - if Debussy had them he would have embraced the idea and insised on using with the orchestra

On 2004-12-08 16:46, Immanuel wrote:

On 2004-12-07 20:03, astroman wrote:
no chance ever to control what a violin virtuoso got under his (or her) fingertips - and no need to. I don't see any problems why the two forms of performing cannot co-exist.

I am talking about a MIDI pick-up for a violin ... not the other way around.

yes, I understood your argument in that context.
Yet there's the 'classical' instrumentalist who is in absolutely no way (imho) 'midi-compatible' and there's the capturing of an instrument's performance (by midi), which is of course useful in some musical context - just not in the 'classic' domain.

The violin certainly representing an extreme position.
If you start later than (say) age 8 you do not even have the (biological) chance to make it to 'world-class', for the simple fact that certain bones of the hand won't adapt to the proper form necessary.

'Classic' also relies heavily on an extreme personal devotion (and elite thinking) as part of the artist's self expression.

cheers,Tom

There hasn't been an electronic music composer who is a genius on the level of Beethoven or Bach, but there will be and if we are lucky it will be in our lifetime and then I think people will have a different opinion of synthesizer music.

I kinda disagree with your statement, Braincell. Although they truely were geniuses(genii?), Beethoven was constantly being bashed when he was alive and Bach was forgotten altogether until Mendelsohn dug out the St-Matthew Passion.

It may very well be that in 200 years Wendy Carlos' "Heaven and Hell" will be regarded as an absolute masterpiece of synthesizer music. Just an example but I believe you get my point.

I haven't heard "Tales of Heaven and Hell" only "Switched on Bach" and "Clockwork Orange" which were not original compositions so I won't judge her as a composer. I seriously doubt that he/she is going to be so highly regarded 300 years from now as Bach! His rendition of "No Pussyfooting" surely would point to the contrary! It is incredibly, totally ludicrous to think that she is a genius.

Agreed

i recognize your genius now!.....

Vangelis did pretty amazing things too! Very expressive use of synths! Another one who pushed me into deeper synth explorations is Enya. Her lush pad sounds are very inspiring to my hears!

But no matter how I try to put it, every time I hear an orchestra or a choir I say to myself "How come I'm still tweaking knobs, when I should be writing for these ensembles!" ...and then I go on tweaking...

I think it has much to do with sound being amplified, because even orchestral recordings have far less impact on me than the real thing.

Thought of a couple of things of some relevance.

The Enid (Robert John Godfrey) are well worth checking out for a synthesised approach to "modern classical music":

"The Orb Meets Pink Floyd Meets The Berlin Philharmonic"
Time Out

Been a looooong time fan of theirs - used to watch them lots as a student.

I was also thinking about what eliam said about singing in a choir and that reminded me of an occasion when I was privilged to hear some overtone chanting at first-hand.

No synth in the world can do that, sorry - one of the weirdest sonic experiences of my life, rivalling the effect of Tibetan ptrayer bowls for outright oddness.

Check out anything on Jill Purce - it is really something else.

Royston

i was just imagining something like solaris with 2 - 3 people controlling it with vast arrays of knobs

maybe a master keyboardist and two different deep-tweakers - all 3 know each other well and specialize in their areas...does this sort of thing happen?

On 2004-12-09 08:43, wayne wrote:
i was just imagining something like solaris with 2 - 3 people controlling it with vast arrays of knobs

maybe a master keyboardist and two different deep-tweakers - all 3 know each other well and specialize in their areas...does this sort of thing happen?

Well, that's kind of how the very first 'synthesisers', early 20th century, had to operate (google on 'telharmonium)... My two cents - I think people get tired of synthesisers because they have been overused or used tritely (especially, in many mid- to late 80s tunes). Instead of a real sax, real strings, they are a pale and often annoying imitation. Instead of using a synth as a cheap way to get instrument X, use it for things that it does uniquely. There's no right and wrong way to use a synth - lots of good tunes written with synth strings, and lots more bad tunes that use synth strings (layered with piano, say) to cover for a lack of playing and emotion.

No synthesisers were used in writing this message.

Does anyone remember the incredible palette of colours and feelings in Tangerine Dream's "Phaedra"?

I sure do. Mellotron through a phaser What a mood that reated when it came out!

Man, Phaedra is pretty much what turned me on to electronic stuff . I mean, I had heard Pink Floyd when I was 4, and it took me years and years before I managed to track down that "special sound", but Phaedra was my first definite OMG!!! moment. Really really awesome record. Incidently, it was sitting in the house pretty much since my birth, it just took me 15 years to realise it was there, heh.

One thing I love about Tangerine Dream (from that period at least) is their use of rhytmic melodic lines, where the melodic line isn't just some pretty notes strewn around, but part of the rhytmic backbone of the whole track. Check out the Klaus Schulze releases from that period too .

Let us not forget Isao Tomita.

His rendition of Firebird Suite is fantastic.

He employed sytnhs in a way that was both musical and texterually satisfiying.

R

Anyone remember Paul Beaver and Bernard Krause? They're synth (Moog I think) pioneers from the late 60s. They recorded some innovative "spacey" stuff, but also some jams with SF Bay area jazz guys. First use of synths in improv/solo setting I know of. Wonder what became of them?

/dave

I quite like Jon Hassell's work.. I've no idea what he uses or how he gets the sound he does, but it sounds great. You can't even tell if the sounds he's making originated from synthetic or acoustic sources. In many ways I'm not even bothered to find out. I just take it as what it is.. great music.