Technology and the creative process

[Kevin Nolan]

Hi John,

I agree to an extent. Many of Mozart's finest pieces are not necessarily his 'most complex'. However, this does not negate the idea that sophisticated ideas can be good. Sometimes, and especially these day of discerning tastes, complexity is needed/demanded by an audience. Even music fans who know nothing formally can be very dismissive of what they perceive to be trite, clichéd, cheesy or whatever - and they are usually right. I have especially found this for electronic music. In college I improvised my electronic compositions on a few synths on stage during a 'band night' and for my efforts I had water, tomato-ketchup and hay pored over me (and my synthesizers) from the lighting gallery as a prank; while I was booed off stage for not being 'indie' / cool enough or whatever.

I have also found among my numerous orchestral composer colleagues and friends an almost universal ignorance on electronic music and instruments. Hence our genre needs the very best at its disposal to penetrate the general 'discerning' population who; rightly, by default like anything from the beatles to bach for their 'human fell factor' and meaning on a cultural level. For electronic musicians, they are often not seen as equal in artistic/cultural stature and hence need every means at their disposal to dispel preconceptions and indeed overcome such often correct appraisal of electronic music. That's why I admire Vangelis so much. He speaks to a wide audience even with electronic instruments because he uses the most immediate instruments available and composed extremely good music. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles come to mind here also.

But in general, whether contemporary classical or jazz, it's probably also true to say that it's increasingly difficult to say something actually new, and hence composers/players in those genres have become more and more sophisticated in their music. I think it's the same in fusion music - it's usually only the very best music that achieves notoriety.

Hence, if you look at the legacy instruments such as the minimoog, cs80, cp80, prophet 5, fender rhodes, hammond b3 and so on, they have been used in classic music because they are exquisite instruments, with the dual capability of being fantastic sounding and incredibly intuitive to approach and use. As I've mentioned before here, I've spent a long time hunting down and having restored several CS80s. I'm telling you - you really aught to find one and sit down at it. You really aught to! It's like absolutely nothing else on this Earth, and I'm not overstating it. It will be a long, long time before designers stumble across the circumstances to put out something as good. I bet you that owners of CP80 and Fender Rhodes pianos, of Hammond B3 organs and of Minimoogs say the very same - and it is this that I personally hope for for the OASYS - it's certainly close; but, as indicated above, while parts of it are awesome in sound and capability, many of its best features do require a lot of work to become familiar with and to hope to achieve it's potential.

Kevin.

[ellll]

Hi Kevin,

Must be short, but will drop in again...

In fact I played the CS and the GX when a friend was an ex at Yammie and a big shop owner...and I would indeed give my left...protuberance..for one today..

Now I am old..and I remember even more rare items ...the orig moog equip...How far we have come...!! and the Hammond..reworked the leslies (twin) on one in a church I wanted to play at..to get a more, shall we say "Enshrined" sound..

Still listen to vinyl here...have a cleaner..table..arm..and also happen to prefer the voices for the O1W I still use..except for the Oasys..

And yes..I built a pipe organ into my last home...rebuilt it, enlarged it..and sold it for more than I had in it...Of interest...went to a Pres. Church very near and across the street from Kent State..the Oasys is not a pipe organ...(but you can sound mighty close...)

And, Yes...I want one...but I am on retirement now...may have to put it off a while...

Yet..in the end...I drift down to my small (Chinese,..sorry ) grand..and I jus'.. drift...and ..I meet the truth again...It is INSIDE us...a trigger that the O1W hits at times...the CS80 hits...the pipe organ...or the Atlanta Sym...and sometimes just a line of some song...It is a MYSTERY..and so it shall always be...

But I know you know that...It was what I was talking about...In the end ..it IS the strange inner vox. as it were that non-entity we can scream for in our sleep...and only find when it is time.

For this reason I say...even the most familiar, in a clever twist..is new...Remember..Pas de Deux..The Nutcracker...one octave of descending notes....simply a SCALE..and yet... it has never been surpassed...Its possible to make ANYTHING new...in art..and there is the challenge..

My Best Regards, You are wise, I see... John ellll

[Kayemef]

Could we say that we are facing some sort of aesthetic identity crisis for electronic music ??

BTW - huge IMHO all the way down

It's a difficult choice : on one side we have what we could call the "factory preset type" (or just "presets" - for short) and at the other we have the vast and unlimited possibilities of software sound synthesis like Csound or the NI Reactor. IMHO, the Oasys stands in the middle of both.

I would call "preset" any sound produced by a keyboard that happens to be an emulation of an instrument that has an established reputation and a certain specific recognizable quality to its sound. Pretty much anything that comes out of our modern keyboards would fit in this category. This encircles all the sounds that are accessible by the switch of a button or the dialing in of a bank number. People might consider that "musical electronic instruments" are comprised ONLY of these sounds, which is not totally untrue. Electronic music has its own precursors and traditions, it has its own icons, rockstars and composers alike, it has its own "feel" and one who wants to make electronic music must, in a certain way, insert himself in this established tradition of music-making and savoir-faire (I think I can say that french word in english right??).

These presets (the MS20 on the Oasys for example, or the famous E. piano that everyone has) help us (the young kids - I'm only 24) to understand what were the instruments of the "old" days. With time, we can look back at what has already been done, see what has worked and hasn't, try to understand why, and then work in that direction to make something new. I'm nothing saying that "vintage" instruments are only interesting as museum pieces - these instruments hold a very important role in the spirit of music made in the late 70s or the 80s. As John pointed out, these instruments still have a very powerful voice - a voice perhaps as strong as an organ in a church. Their sound aren't just a bunch of oscillators, they're actually the soul and the driving force of music that has touched an entire generation.

Now, there's the other part - the one when we let go of those presets... As I said earlier, I'm a kid - and like all the little cocky pricks in history before me, we all think that we have to take the drivers seat in the bus riding through history. I spent most of my adolescent years listening to Nine inch nails and Radiohead, so I have been in contact with some rather strange electronic sounds in a rock context. I'm used to it... Most people aren't. When they hear a synth sound they automatically think : 80s - been there, done that. That what's tricky, and that's what we should be concerned about : trying to make a truly electronic instrument with as much expressive modulations as possible - without having a static "waveform" sound. The spectrum of an acoustic intrument is excessively complex... I'm not saying we should try to reproduce these instruments, on the contrary. I always think that a flute sounds way better when it actually IS a flute. I think we should be concentrating on creating electronic sounds that have a number of inner modulations that compete with what is attained when plucking a real guitar or blowing a real horn or ringing a real bell. Perhaps we should even let go of the keyboard concept (Lippold Haken's continuum is a good example) if it inhibits the manipulation of certain sound parameters.


So what about that identity crisis I mentioned earlier... I am trying to go somewhere with all this. I think that electronic music is trying to define itself between the sound of an era (the "vintage" period) and the new technological "digital" era. On one side we have the presets, on the other we have the "open architecture" concept that allows us to try to make something new (in a "sound".point of view) The "open" thing in the Oasys isn't as crazy as the ones in Csound or Reactor, but the wave sequencing and the Karma kit really give it a boost compared to the other workstations. In fact, I hope that years from now, the idea of an Open system will have had repercussions and that a total synthesis interface will be available on keyboards. We already have a touchscreen on the O, and we can plug a mouse on the Roland G, we're not far away .

But what about the music itself?

All this tech stuff about sound synthesis and not one word about the "inner voice"

I had an idea for a project-instrument (a combi) that I want to dive into when I finish my studies this year. I'm used to using velocity as an expressive tool when playing the piano - I think this concept can be exploited further on the Oasys using many velocity layers for different programs with tons of different EGs for each program, using key velocity as an ams (like the orchestral combis in Ex3 - but a little more complex). Real expressiveness doesn't have to come from turning on knobs or faders - it can be something as simple as having an instrument that responds drastically to different velocity accents. I think that technology has to be used to create and instrument that responds to our own intuition. I've never touched a Moog in my entire life so don't ask me to fool around with knods, it just doens't feel natural. I might get the hang of it someday, but right now I think I'll just stick with the velocity layers thing. That's where real musical experience kicks in, its when we "feel" something, and we manage to "hear" it... In order to have that "inner voice" speak, WE have to make it the instrument feel natural to us. It's a personal experience not only to the instrument as a tool but the type of music that speaks to us. And if we feel like hearing a new sound, something out of this world - well for the past 20 or 30 years technology has allowed us to do so.

So let us experiment for a while, Ravel had over a century of classical piano technique and tradition behind him when we composed his Gaspard, we should wait at least another 20 or 30 years before thinking about what history calls masterpieces.

Thanks for reading !!

Pierre-Andre

[ellll]

I can only agree...and point out...,

It is necessary to allow that a sound is just that; they differ in waveform in subtle ways as well as level and intensity...and probably multiforms we don't even know about.....each little hair cell effectivly awaiting a certain stimulation to do it's thing... ..

And therein lies one problem..stated in almost strong form by you...

The "new" world of electronic sound...or perhaps better,the apotheosis of sound...seems to require..the cry of early 20th cent innovation...the Bauhaus...Surrealism, and mostly ART period..."Make it New"!

Sound then, needs to be used for what it is, and NOT to duplicate the forms of the past..., (A major theme of the Bauhaus... Walter Gropius..), even as we preserve and use the past...

Put another way, whats wrong with a band of soddru, bilbangs and a perc section of flubnaight...lead would be done on a guarritoad... ..You get the idea..and I think you said it already...

It is PAST time to accept electronic sound production with new....: notation/sound/naming/use/..etc..etc... The reasons to fight to duplicate the "perfect Bosendorfer piano" for example, simply are not valid anymore...let the electronic piano,.. or synthetic sound of ANY kind..BE what it is...and develop that strange new sound into the exciting thing it can be...with whatever...for a name...

Where will it take us? ,,just as in all history...into new and strange areas of personal interest and excitement...Thats what art is..."Make It New"...

Short on time...thats all for now...

Regards, John ellll

[Michael Robles]

H.G. Wells wrote: …man walks into the future backwards…” And so with all electronic music being less than 100yrs old, imitation of acoustic instruments and orchestras is the most common use of electronic keyboards. How many times have we judged the latest synth/rompler workstation on how real and useful the sampled acoustic piano, guitars, strings, and brass sound?

In time however the sense of discovery found by the early pioneers of electronic music will prevail. Re listen to the all-electronic soundtrack from the 1956 movie Forbidden Planet by Jouis & Bebe Baron, or even earlier experiments in sampling and electronic timbral exploration by Edgar Varese & Stockhausen. Although considered by music critics at the time to be interesting avant guard racket, those pioneers later musically influenced the works of Pete Townshend, Bjork, Frank Zappa., and Miles Davis and countless other artists.

In time our search for innovative sounds will allow for discarding the tyranny of the rompler, the mass destroyer of timbral exploration.

[Michael Robles]

Forgot to add one glimpse towards the future backwards see

http://www.spectrasonics.net/omnisphere ... large.html

Now if we could only enhance or better yet eliminate the 16th century keyboard interface.

[Sina172]

...

[Kayemef]

You also can't modify a GE in any way, unless you use the Control Surface to control the Realtime Parameters that's limited to the RTC Model associated with that GE

You should check out the Karma-Lab site. They just released a PC/Mac interface that allows you to completely tweak your GE and create totally new ones. It's not too expensive, a little bit under 200$ I think.

Pierre-Andre
-Shortest post on this topic I think

[Sina172]

...

[Daz]

Well said Pierre-Andre ... as I've said above, IMHO the Karma Oasys software is an absolute 'must have'. Needless to say, I bought a copy and I am loving having that on my Mac. As a sidenote, before getting into the crunchy stuff, I keep commending SK for his efforts, but should also say bravo to Korg for implementing the other end of it, because the User GE support works very well on the Oasys itself and they've been generous with the number of User GE slots.

Now the crunchy stuff. Amen, Sina ... I agree with a lot of what you've said and it was resonating here a great deal.

I am back to using my Oasys for my "solo" music, after a hiatus where I was more focussed on my guitar/vox bound project and real world stuff (selling my company etc.) . During that time I only really used the Oasys as a keyboard, recording the odd individual sound here and there.

It's great to "come back" to it and use it as for full-on electronic music pieces. I am enjoying "rediscovering" it and also getting to use MOD-7 for real, rather than just learning my way around it. I love how it sounds, even just with dry sounds playing different parts playing multi-timbrally in combi mode, it sounds so present and there is such clarity and distinction between the parts. However I am also rediscovering the 'less desireable' aspects like having to use my special 15 part combi template to simulate local control off whilst still having local control on, not being able to edit the proggies when/how I would want, and saving my work to cryptic 8.3 filenames etc. etc.

I don't need to cover those things again, I've already overstated all of that, but it brings me to a more general point I want to make.

We're talking about taking things forwards ... hoping that musictech companies will create kit that will have better workflow, more separation between the technology and the artist, and better music making abstractions generally. Yes please to all of that. However, before moving forwards to do all this funky stuff, I think there is also a need to just address some of the real basics. This goes for all the synth manufacturers to varying degrees, not just Korg by any means. I am really surprised not to see more accessible interfaces to sound programming (as per Kevins comments). The SoundShaper in the V-Synth took an initial step in this direction and then mysteriously took a step backwards on their GT. There is so much that could be done there, and I've discussed a number of ideas with people and received positive feedback. However, before doing something like that and moving into a bright future, there are some basic things that need to addressed to even make things 'current'. There are a lot of things in some modern instruments that are just archaic, and it's those things that are as much an impediment to creativity as the lack of funky futuristic things.


Daz.

[Daz]

But the mere fact that I DO NOT have a computer of my own (of ANY kind) makes it THAT much more difficult for me.

Ouch, yeah that is rather leaving you out in the cold. It's a shame because you're digging into this stuff and it sounds like you'll be missing out.

I know a lot of these features exist in the Software, but I also KNOW that they can be implemented INSIDE the OASYS, and that's what I'm waiting for.

I was surprised that the ability to do some basics such as importing phrases from the sequencer into a GE were not added right into the Oasys itself. However, as you recently relayed to us, a fair bit of the Oasys environment is relying on older technology from the Triton and thus can't be easily bent into new shapes. I had rather hoped that the following statement from the Oasys website :

"OASYS is not only an entirely new instrument, but a completely new platform to support Korg innovation for years to come."

... meant that things would change a little more as we went along. It's funny, I had originally thought the Oasys just looked like a Triton because they'd sensibly adopted the same look and feel on the "completely new platform". Seemingly thats not the case, the Oasys is rather more Triton that I'd thought ... so many things that we think could be done easily inside the Oasys, aren't going to be feasible to implement.

I think you're going to need to consider getting a laptop, I am sorry to say ...

Daz.

[danatkorg]

However, as you recently relayed to us, a fair bit of the Oasys environment is relying on older technology from the Triton and thus can't be easily bent into new shapes.

I'm guessing that you're referring to Sina's comments about his discussion with Stephen Kay at NAMM. I don't know what this comment actually related to, or how accurately it was recounted, but I can say with absolute certainty that it is not an accurate portrayal of the OASYS environment, code, or technology.

I had rather hoped that the following statement from the Oasys website :

"OASYS is not only an entirely new instrument, but a completely new platform to support Korg innovation for years to come."

... meant that things would change a little more as we went along.

I know that you have a few specific things you'd like to see changed; top among them, editing for Programs in Sequencer mode. As we've discussed, I'd like to see this too.

At the moment, we're once again hard at work on the next update. Meanwhile, since the 1.0 release, we've added:
STR-1
PolysixEX
MS-20EX
MOD-7
EXs3
Approximately 1,000 new Programs using the above new EXi and EXs
Chord mode
EXi audio input
AMS Mixer "Gate"
Smoothing for Tone Adjust
Poly unison
Max # of notes
Increased polyphony for AL-1 and STR-1
KARMA 2.1, including user GEs
2 GB RAM support
Load/unload of EXs without restart
Lossless compression of EXs samples
Other small goodies like EXi 1/2 transpose, step sequencer attack/decay smoothing, half damper enable/disable, etc.

- Dan

[Daz]

The Pattern Grid in the Arpeggiator was a godsend in almost EVERY aspect

That really was good wasn't it, especially for drum programming. I remember reading on the Motif forums that the XS lost step entry, again another useful technique for drum programming. LOL, what do these companies have against us programming our own drum patterns ?

Daz.

[Daz]

At the moment, we're once again hard at work on the next update. Meanwhile, since the 1.0 release, we've added:
STR-1
PolysixEX
MS-20EX
MOD-7
EXs3
Approximately 1,000 new Programs using the above new EXi and EXs
Chord mode
EXi audio input
AMS Mixer "Gate"
Smoothing for Tone Adjust
Poly unison
Max # of notes
Increased polyphony for AL-1 and STR-1
KARMA 2.1, including user GEs
2 GB RAM support
Load/unload of EXs without restart
Lossless compression of EXs samples
Other small goodies like EXi 1/2 transpose, step sequencer attack/decay smoothing, half damper enable/disable, etc.

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"



Point taken. I should have been a lot more precise than I was. The many changes to the synth engines and KARMA are fantastic, but the actual world they live in (the platform or environment) hasn't changed as much as I would have hoped.

Daz.

[Sina172]

...