I agree with the general sentiment of this thread. I find a great amount of frustration at the apparent complacency or possibly even just general ignorance in the development of music hardware. The software market seems to be moving at several orders of magnitude faster.
The OASYS was revolutionary, if only purely from a closed system point of view - the integration of multiple synthesis types into a single keyboard seems to be 'the way to go'. But people won't be happy if it doesn't do what they want it to do, and it has to be on a competitive level with software products too!
I think a lot of people would love to see something like a Korg workstation - where you can assign controllers to parameters and you can combine multiple plugins or at least an expandable selection of synthesis engines in a Korg Combi style.
It could even run windows embedded and support most VSTi's. I do have to point out that 'VST' is just one type of plugin, albeit most popular thanks to Steinberg.
I've been trying to build something exactly like this.
I fail to understand Korg's discontinuation of the KLC-AE either.
New gear is only exciting if it genuinely has something new to offer.
For the past 10-20 years we have merely seen the same synthesis engines. But there has been improvement. But companies have been settled on 'sampling', 'VA', and occasionally 'FM' (and its equivalents), instead focusing on offering better specs, stats, and features around that.
15 Years later.... and …
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
Current Gear: Kronos 61, RADIAS-R, Volca Bass, ESX-1, microKorg, MS2000B, R3, Kaossilator Pro +, MiniKP, AX3000B, nanoKontrol, nanoPad MK II,
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Yes, that what happense now, people start not buy workstations and workstation market goes down. but people don't want to buy workstation not because thay are expensive but because thay are really not worth, because a good pc with hight quality vst can give u so much more for the same price of workstation and it is extendablebillysynth1 wrote:Yes, 15yrs later and still more of the same...but if people object so much why are these companies still in business?? Because we just keep going back for more of this 'same' crapola time after time after time. Thats why!
STOP BUYING THE SH...IT LOL
Billy
so in conclusion if keyboard manufactors will continue give us the same sample cd quality playback technology and other crapp thay will end up with banrucy..
My Youtube chenel: https://www.youtube.com/@user-br3rk3su6b
-
Kevin Nolan
- Approved Merchant
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:08 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
- Contact:
Sharp –
I find that I both agree with you and disagree with you!
For example – if you look at the path from M1-OASYS; there is a default or inevitable improvement. I think we’d all agree the OASYS is a serious improvement on the OASYS; all grievances with the OASYS aside.
I actually own a VL1 and agree it’s a pinnacle. In fact – it is still completely contemporary in its sophistication and the limits of playing it are the player’s ability, not the instrument itself. So in many ways it does not need to be improved!
There are a few places I wish could be improved. If you look at the CS80; today we could build a CS80 properly – reliable, light and equally if not more awesome in its capabilities. Yet we don’t. We could say the same about the Jupiter 8, Prophet 5 and so on. That's a frustration to me but apparently not even to other synthesists. But I think the reasons why these are not build is also the economics. We say that alot but I think it's true. Very true. I also think that despite advances in technology we cannot recreate those classics as easily as it might seem – in the same way as we can’t make another Stradivarius. Moog tried to recreate the Minimoog with the Voyager but he did not succeed – its the flaws in the Minimoog as well as its awesome 70’s analogue design that make it unique and that can’t be reproduced (unfortunately).
But for me the biggest frustration is not in an insufficient development in the types of features you call for. IMO many of these HAVE been solved in software. Who cares about the OASYS sequencer when Logic does the job? Seriously - with little effort even you could force yourself to use Logic and other DAWS and all the issues you bemoan would be solved. I'm playing devils advocate (earnestly) here - I know you make many valid points but offer a valid alterantive outlook (which I don't fully subscibe to).
To me, a far more serious issue is in the lack of imagination in (or call for) developing new types of hardware control over sophisticated musical expression. There is simply no serious innovation going on to raise the bar in terms of shortening the distance from musical creative thought to capturing that idea through performance and recording. I personally come up with complete musical pieces on a regular basis that get lost because even the likes of Logic, Ableton and Sibelius are dinosaurs. They are crude and laborious. It takes an eternity for those packages to capture even the simplist musical idea and by then the moment is gone. I absolutely hate that in the 20 years or so I've been into electronic music that the MIDI capabilites of even the latest version of Ableton are no better than those of Cubase on an Atari. I believe the next revolution will only occur when sophisticated computing allows for far more spontaneous interfacing with the creative process; but we are a long way from that - and nobody - not even you - are aclling for this.
So I also feel that we as musicians are equally to blame. To be honests – and I run the risk or offending here – I can’t stand that idea that music mostly discussed here is always based on drum beats, or starts with drum beats. To me, dance music is the death of music because it has to start with a bloody loop. It is so tired. So we’re simply not thinking imaginatively musically and are not demanding any imaginative designs from these companies. So what do you expect from them? In my view its getting worse, not better – but we are equally culpable in that.
Here’s something I was discussing with a family member earlier to day expressing my frustration in electronic music. In a 1970’s Isao Tomita album he created an electronic rendition of the Allegro from Prokofiev’s 5th symphony. With nothing more than a Moog 55 and a Roland RS202 string machine, he made the synthesized orchestral strings perform with better articulation than even the VSL strings are capable of today. I’m serious – pre-midi 70’s analogue synths with better string articulations (pitched tremolo...) than even VSL. But here’s the frustrating bit to me – despite all the forums I’m aware of, and all the synthesists I know of, not one, not one single one (and I’ve asked and asked) can tell me how Tomita achieved this. My point is - on planet Earth today, there is not one existing synthesist who gives a damn about such advanced expression in synthesis, and not one synthesist I've come across gives a damn about innovative ways of using synthesizers as Tomita (and others in the 70’s and 80’s) did. To me this is a miserable state of affairs, and only confirms to me that true innovation through synthesis is firmly in the past.
So I have to ask what are you looking for from synthesizer companies when they see essentially no innovation in the use of their products. As it stands, there is a Universe of features in the OASYS that simply do not get used by anyone - ever. Yet, Korg busted their asses to get those features out. MOD-7 and STR-1 provide for unphathomably deep sound design, yet nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – gives a damn or ever programmes these synth engines. So why should Korg provide extra MOSS or VL models, or improvements to a sequencer, when the gargantuan possibilities they already worked tirelessly to put out are completely ignored by even their most dedicated followers?
As far as Korg sophistication goes, OASYS is it. It does not get better. And as far as OASYS followers of – we’re it. There is nobody else. Yet we continue to completely ignore about 95% of the features of OASYS.
In short, we are ignoring the mammoth efforts already given to us within the OASYS feature set, we are not innovative enough in our music creation (as a generaion) to warrant further synthesizer development. And the rest of music performers – as in the acoustic world from folk to classical - could not give a damn about synthesis or synthesizer instruments. Synthesizers have no champions right now. Not even you. Even the giants like Vangelis, Jarre and Tangerine Dream say nothing about this as they used to int he 80’s. I find that outreagous. And none of them are producing new innovative electronic music.
So here’s the big picture – we’re a quirky bunch – a side line to music and not where the action is. Meanwhile the world seems content on bands with a Triton and Motif on a 2-tier stand turning out the R&B and dance hits.
Regarding Daz’s software – I equally say – he simply wasn’t a priority. I have been, like many here, a loyal follower of yours and Daz’s – you have both done an amazing job that Korg SHOULD acknowledge – but they don’t. But here’s the hard bit – not because they decided NOT to acknowledge Daz – but because they never gave him even the amount thought on whether to make that decision.
Its a big world out there and we're not at the centre of what's going on musically. So I suggest there are many competing forces as to why your frustrations persist - but rest assured - you're contributing to the situation (as am I and the rest of us). I believe all of this would require a deeper analysis or a major new Beatles-type musical revolution to make electronic music instrument design go in a new and exciting direction.
Kevin.
I find that I both agree with you and disagree with you!
For example – if you look at the path from M1-OASYS; there is a default or inevitable improvement. I think we’d all agree the OASYS is a serious improvement on the OASYS; all grievances with the OASYS aside.
I actually own a VL1 and agree it’s a pinnacle. In fact – it is still completely contemporary in its sophistication and the limits of playing it are the player’s ability, not the instrument itself. So in many ways it does not need to be improved!
There are a few places I wish could be improved. If you look at the CS80; today we could build a CS80 properly – reliable, light and equally if not more awesome in its capabilities. Yet we don’t. We could say the same about the Jupiter 8, Prophet 5 and so on. That's a frustration to me but apparently not even to other synthesists. But I think the reasons why these are not build is also the economics. We say that alot but I think it's true. Very true. I also think that despite advances in technology we cannot recreate those classics as easily as it might seem – in the same way as we can’t make another Stradivarius. Moog tried to recreate the Minimoog with the Voyager but he did not succeed – its the flaws in the Minimoog as well as its awesome 70’s analogue design that make it unique and that can’t be reproduced (unfortunately).
But for me the biggest frustration is not in an insufficient development in the types of features you call for. IMO many of these HAVE been solved in software. Who cares about the OASYS sequencer when Logic does the job? Seriously - with little effort even you could force yourself to use Logic and other DAWS and all the issues you bemoan would be solved. I'm playing devils advocate (earnestly) here - I know you make many valid points but offer a valid alterantive outlook (which I don't fully subscibe to).
To me, a far more serious issue is in the lack of imagination in (or call for) developing new types of hardware control over sophisticated musical expression. There is simply no serious innovation going on to raise the bar in terms of shortening the distance from musical creative thought to capturing that idea through performance and recording. I personally come up with complete musical pieces on a regular basis that get lost because even the likes of Logic, Ableton and Sibelius are dinosaurs. They are crude and laborious. It takes an eternity for those packages to capture even the simplist musical idea and by then the moment is gone. I absolutely hate that in the 20 years or so I've been into electronic music that the MIDI capabilites of even the latest version of Ableton are no better than those of Cubase on an Atari. I believe the next revolution will only occur when sophisticated computing allows for far more spontaneous interfacing with the creative process; but we are a long way from that - and nobody - not even you - are aclling for this.
So I also feel that we as musicians are equally to blame. To be honests – and I run the risk or offending here – I can’t stand that idea that music mostly discussed here is always based on drum beats, or starts with drum beats. To me, dance music is the death of music because it has to start with a bloody loop. It is so tired. So we’re simply not thinking imaginatively musically and are not demanding any imaginative designs from these companies. So what do you expect from them? In my view its getting worse, not better – but we are equally culpable in that.
Here’s something I was discussing with a family member earlier to day expressing my frustration in electronic music. In a 1970’s Isao Tomita album he created an electronic rendition of the Allegro from Prokofiev’s 5th symphony. With nothing more than a Moog 55 and a Roland RS202 string machine, he made the synthesized orchestral strings perform with better articulation than even the VSL strings are capable of today. I’m serious – pre-midi 70’s analogue synths with better string articulations (pitched tremolo...) than even VSL. But here’s the frustrating bit to me – despite all the forums I’m aware of, and all the synthesists I know of, not one, not one single one (and I’ve asked and asked) can tell me how Tomita achieved this. My point is - on planet Earth today, there is not one existing synthesist who gives a damn about such advanced expression in synthesis, and not one synthesist I've come across gives a damn about innovative ways of using synthesizers as Tomita (and others in the 70’s and 80’s) did. To me this is a miserable state of affairs, and only confirms to me that true innovation through synthesis is firmly in the past.
So I have to ask what are you looking for from synthesizer companies when they see essentially no innovation in the use of their products. As it stands, there is a Universe of features in the OASYS that simply do not get used by anyone - ever. Yet, Korg busted their asses to get those features out. MOD-7 and STR-1 provide for unphathomably deep sound design, yet nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – gives a damn or ever programmes these synth engines. So why should Korg provide extra MOSS or VL models, or improvements to a sequencer, when the gargantuan possibilities they already worked tirelessly to put out are completely ignored by even their most dedicated followers?
As far as Korg sophistication goes, OASYS is it. It does not get better. And as far as OASYS followers of – we’re it. There is nobody else. Yet we continue to completely ignore about 95% of the features of OASYS.
In short, we are ignoring the mammoth efforts already given to us within the OASYS feature set, we are not innovative enough in our music creation (as a generaion) to warrant further synthesizer development. And the rest of music performers – as in the acoustic world from folk to classical - could not give a damn about synthesis or synthesizer instruments. Synthesizers have no champions right now. Not even you. Even the giants like Vangelis, Jarre and Tangerine Dream say nothing about this as they used to int he 80’s. I find that outreagous. And none of them are producing new innovative electronic music.
So here’s the big picture – we’re a quirky bunch – a side line to music and not where the action is. Meanwhile the world seems content on bands with a Triton and Motif on a 2-tier stand turning out the R&B and dance hits.
Regarding Daz’s software – I equally say – he simply wasn’t a priority. I have been, like many here, a loyal follower of yours and Daz’s – you have both done an amazing job that Korg SHOULD acknowledge – but they don’t. But here’s the hard bit – not because they decided NOT to acknowledge Daz – but because they never gave him even the amount thought on whether to make that decision.
Its a big world out there and we're not at the centre of what's going on musically. So I suggest there are many competing forces as to why your frustrations persist - but rest assured - you're contributing to the situation (as am I and the rest of us). I believe all of this would require a deeper analysis or a major new Beatles-type musical revolution to make electronic music instrument design go in a new and exciting direction.
Kevin.
Hi Kevin,
Lot of good points there. When you talk about synthesis, and the way SwIsao Tomita approached it etc, do you think the OASYS programmers (Dan Phillips/Kevin (Ski) et al underestimated the "95"% area of the OASYS users you talk about? and the fact that nobody uses the O to anywhere near its potential?
This could be lack of knowledge mind (were not all Swisao Tomitas/Vangellis/Jarres here you know!) Should the user be to blame then - for only contributing 5% of the oasys's potential? Maybe WE - the user need to do more? Yes?
Actually looking at some YouTube videos of people opening there Oasys, smiling at the pretty "Christmas tree” lights on it; setting it up, then playing it like an arranger............
Lot of good points there. When you talk about synthesis, and the way SwIsao Tomita approached it etc, do you think the OASYS programmers (Dan Phillips/Kevin (Ski) et al underestimated the "95"% area of the OASYS users you talk about? and the fact that nobody uses the O to anywhere near its potential?
This could be lack of knowledge mind (were not all Swisao Tomitas/Vangellis/Jarres here you know!) Should the user be to blame then - for only contributing 5% of the oasys's potential? Maybe WE - the user need to do more? Yes?
Actually looking at some YouTube videos of people opening there Oasys, smiling at the pretty "Christmas tree” lights on it; setting it up, then playing it like an arranger............
KORG KRONOS 88-Korg D3200-Casio Privia PX-830BP-KAWAI RX-2 Grand Piano
Sequencing: KRONOS/Cubase/Cubasis/iPad air2
JOHN 3:16
Sequencing: KRONOS/Cubase/Cubasis/iPad air2
JOHN 3:16
Very interesting thread ... thanx for starting it!
i've got a similar impression: hardware synths keep falling behind software developments. the main reason for a hardware synth or workstation is its higher reliability esp for live performances - and not its level of ongoing development!
still i couldn't agree more to the notion of ongoing decreasing creativity where it comes to using and exploring what we already have. this is esp true for the oasys. music nowadays is more and more recycling of old music and sounds. personally i think its cool that people with little musical education and experience can make well sounding music, too. but at the same time the overall level of creativity seems to go down too.
i've got a similar impression: hardware synths keep falling behind software developments. the main reason for a hardware synth or workstation is its higher reliability esp for live performances - and not its level of ongoing development!
still i couldn't agree more to the notion of ongoing decreasing creativity where it comes to using and exploring what we already have. this is esp true for the oasys. music nowadays is more and more recycling of old music and sounds. personally i think its cool that people with little musical education and experience can make well sounding music, too. but at the same time the overall level of creativity seems to go down too.
Re: 15 Years later.... and …
Go ahead, ask the difficult questions, why don't you!Sharp wrote:So... what do you think ?
How do you feel about the last 15 years of development.
Kevin, as ever, has given a wonderfully considered and informed reply which touches on elements on how I would answer the question.
Tomita (and the other 80s gang) was who I listened to when I was growing up and was enthralled - his Bolero cover is probably how Ravel himself would do it if he had the same kit! Wonderful stuff.
And his music got me round to thinking the the progress over the last 15 years is almost a contradiction in itself. Yes, technically, the capability of MS20 versus OASYS is a bit of a no-brainer. So has this extra 'technology' increased creativity... no, I don't think so.
There is an expectation (sometimes evident on these baords as well as others), that you buy the kit, press the button, play the keys, get a hit record. Then that the drives the appetite for 'new sounds' - makes me laugh really - again it's the desire to be fed new 'instant hits'. But why have this for machines that can 'technically' create any sound you want? Just sit down, work it all out, orchestrate it (the 80s gang were masters of this part) and you get something unique.
The machines have changed I think enormously since the M1 (same chain of development I agree) but capability is so much broader. But has the user advanced with the machine? No I don't think so!
We need to step back from the technology arguments as no-one will ever win. In the graphic design world, designers often love the challenge of only being allowed to use two colours for a design (branding or cost usually behind it). But they've got 10% tints of each colour - so that's 20 colours they've now got and if the paper is white they can leave bits blank and get a 21st colour.
I'd love to see a contest and/or exhibition thread on this board where you can use any Korg keyboard you want - but you can only use two factory presets which have to be named and you can do any amount of 'twiddling' you want. No sequencing allowed other than on a drum track which would be in addition to the two sounds, if necessary - you can still do arps/patterns/etc but you have to play them! No covers allowed unless the piece is from the classical world.
That to me would show what musician and instrument are capable of - which is the same mutually-dependent relationship as it was 15 years ago - so from that point of view nothing has changed at all!
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5,
-
ozy
pardon a dumb question:X-Trade wrote:the integration of multiple synthesis types into a single keyboard seems to be 'the way to go'.
where is the "integration"?
on the Oasys, can you create patches where a sampled-based emulation is fed though a VA filter,
or where user-sampled waveforms are chained in a wavesequence and fed through a VA filter?
Or in the contrary you can just create combinations which stack a quasi-analogue pad on a quasi-wavesequence, with orchestral strings on top?
"Integration" has a specific meaning. I don't see "integration", I see juxtaposition.
Integration would have mad a 15-years jump in technology.
Stacking different sounds which don't interact, is mid-80s midi technology (the infamous piano+strings layers)
-
peter m. mahr
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:47 am
Re: 15 Years later.... and …
Why don't you start?cello wrote:I'd love to see a contest and/or exhibition thread on this board where you can use any Korg keyboard you want - but you can only use two factory presets which have to be named and you can do any amount of 'twiddling' you want. No sequencing allowed other than on a drum track which would be in addition to the two sounds, if necessary - you can still do arps/patterns/etc but you have to play them! No covers allowed unless the piece is from the classical world.
Peter
-
peter m. mahr
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:47 am
@ Kevin: your posting in this thread to me is one of the best I have read in the last years.
By the way ... as Charlie already pointed out, excellent thread! Thanks for starting it.
Peter
.. this includes me, definitely. I know that I did not even scratch the surface of STR-1 AND MOD-7. Even worse, I remember when I played the MOD-7 factory presets the first time. Honestly, I was disappointed. But after a certain time I realised what an excellent job the sound programmers made. Coming from the DX-7 and having programmed dozens of good sounds... I know that I am lightyears away from what I could do with MOD-7.Kevin Nolan wrote: So I have to ask what are you looking for from synthesizer companies when they see essentially no innovation in the use of their products. As it stands, there is a Universe of features in the OASYS that simply do not get used by anyone - ever. Yet, Korg busted their asses to get those features out. MOD-7 and STR-1 provide for unphathomably deep sound design, yet nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – gives a damn or ever programmes these synth engines. So why should Korg provide extra MOSS or VL models, or improvements to a sequencer, when the gargantuan possibilities they already worked tirelessly to put out are completely ignored by even their most dedicated followers?
By the way ... as Charlie already pointed out, excellent thread! Thanks for starting it.
Peter
Should have seen that one coming!...
Tell you what, I will if you will!
Should put a duration limit on length just to be practical - say no more than 4 minutes?
Tell you what, I will if you will!
Should put a duration limit on length just to be practical - say no more than 4 minutes?
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5,
-
peter m. mahr
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:47 am
-
ozy
amenKevin Nolan wrote: I can’t stand that idea that music mostly discussed here is always based on drum beats, or starts with drum beats.
maybe...Kevin Nolan wrote: nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – gives a damn or ever programmes these synth engines. So why should Korg provide extra MOSS or VL models, or improvements to a sequencer, when the gargantuan possibilities they already worked tirelessly to put out are completely ignored by even their most dedicated followers?
... because they innovated exactly the part of their synths which panders top new-age and dance-oriented repetitive-pattern music.
Moss or VL tools would be nice because they would be performance-oriented.
I program performance-responsive patches, so I am always on the look for synths with plenty of hand-to-processor-to-ear interaction.
This is why I complain about lack of VL developments, and couldn't care less about bigger sample collections (since samples are by definition scantly performance-responsive)
I am a bit confused.Kevin Nolan wrote: Its a big world out there and we're not at the centre of what's going on musically.
You hate boring dance music, but you say that we shouldn't complain because most musicians play (...er..., "play"... ok, let's say "play"...) it.
That's a bit on the determinist side:
since that's the mainstream, somebody who's not on mainstream should accept "the facts of life" and stop complaining?
That's it?
"Resistence is futile"?
Well, I have probably given Korg more money, over the years, than a dozen pasty-faced, computer-toting, pencil-neck, head-bobbing trance music "composers",
so I feel definitely free of complaining.
Because - and that's the little dirty secret - new sounds are NOT invented, and new instruments are not financed, by the average spineless teenager on his computer, who uses 235 VSTs and would like them on his keyboard.
The industry is financed, in descending order of money paid, by
1) wedding and hotel-lounge players
2) session men
3) churches
4) amateurs
5) professionals
6)
7)
32) wannabe professionals who produce nothing but demos and self-published mp3s.
This are the people who buy instruments.
I count among the upper echelon, so I feel free of complaining as much as I like.
On the other hand the ampunt of opinion about keyboards posted on the web comes from the following groups (in descending order)
1) wannabe professionals currently working at Kikko's Deli and planning their next demo (when? since they are always busy posting on the web?)
2)
3)
4)
5)
...
99) amateurs asking for help [and unfortunately getting it from the abovementioned]
...
112) professionals
113) session men
...
254) wedding players
...
330) church players
And new sounds are created by:
1) professionals
2) session men
3) amateurs
Church players and wedding players don't care.
Nerds just can't (knob-twisting is NOT sound-design. Wrist-consuming filter sweeps on a sequence are not "new sound". They are wrist exercise, comparable but less artistic than wanking).
Among others, please notice that
people who program sounds
people who buy massively instruments
people who dictated the musical taste
and
people who chat on the web
are definitely NOT the same group
@Sharp/Kevin/everyone - 
sorry to temporarily hijack your fantastic thread - really don't want the discussion to end here! Will start a new thread after this post.
So combis are okay but only if they don't contain sequences as part of the combi. Sorry Stephen - but also no Karma for enabled keyboards either! It's just a limited pallete of two factory sounds and a percussion track.
Point of factory sounds is that we all start from the same point (or can do) should anyone want to re-create the sound for themselves, supporting Kevin's fine point above about working imaginatively (one of many he made) - we all share the same starting point when we buy our keyboard. For O users, out of respect for Kevin, his AL-1 sounds can be considered 'factory'.
This is my (probably very poor) attempt to have somewhere that doesn't argue about who has more LFOs than the other, what is/is not possible with a sequencer, etc ,etc.
Will be interesting to see who else (from all keyboard sections here) fancy a go! I'm hoping that there is more imagination out there than I think there is...
sorry to temporarily hijack your fantastic thread - really don't want the discussion to end here! Will start a new thread after this post.@ Peter - great! I deleted the reference to combis because units like the Radias doesn't use progs and combis but multiple timbres. Don't want to exlude any Korg model so that everyone can join in if they want to.peter m. mahr wrote:
why not.
Just to be sure not to misunderstand your idea. But why factory sounds and no combis?
Peter
So combis are okay but only if they don't contain sequences as part of the combi. Sorry Stephen - but also no Karma for enabled keyboards either! It's just a limited pallete of two factory sounds and a percussion track.
Point of factory sounds is that we all start from the same point (or can do) should anyone want to re-create the sound for themselves, supporting Kevin's fine point above about working imaginatively (one of many he made) - we all share the same starting point when we buy our keyboard. For O users, out of respect for Kevin, his AL-1 sounds can be considered 'factory'.
This is my (probably very poor) attempt to have somewhere that doesn't argue about who has more LFOs than the other, what is/is not possible with a sequencer, etc ,etc.
Will be interesting to see who else (from all keyboard sections here) fancy a go! I'm hoping that there is more imagination out there than I think there is...
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5,
-
Kevin Nolan
- Approved Merchant
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:08 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
- Contact:
Wrong, because I've purchased my two OASYS-88 mainly because of MOD-7 and STR-1 and I am programming my own sounds with them, and I am still transfering my beloved SY-99 Sounds into MOD-7 (which is a good way to learn about MOD-7), which I've created ALL BY MYSELF...Kevin Nolan wrote: MOD-7 and STR-1 provide for unphathomably deep sound design, yet nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – gives a damn or ever programmes these synth engines.
Joe Zawinul once said, that for him the synthesizer (which for him as a jazz musician was his main instrument) is an acoustic instrument (the sound is coming out of the speaker acoustically, isn't it?) and that he approaches the synthesizer like an acoustic intrument. Listen to his great synth work with "Weather Report" from the seventies...He already did everything what you are asking for a long time ago. We just have to follow his footprints...