The mellotron is basically an analogue sampler.matedog wrote:To muddy the waters a bit, is mellotron considered a synthesizer? Or is it just a glorified tape player?
The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
It isn't terribly diverse now, and that's gotten worse over time, particularly as digital synthesis and sampling have come to dominant the field. I mean, in some ways the portable analogue synth (Minimoog, ARP 2600, ARP Odyssey being the most popular), because it had to pare down things, started that sort of limitation, but it still encouraged experimentation due to the lack of presets and the knobby interface. Then you have things like my Korg MS-20, which are semi-modular, so more patchability.Dr. Medulla wrote:No, I'm not denying the capabilities of diverse sounds, but that what is chosen tends to be a narrow "synth sound." Excluding experimental musicians, whose very nature is to explore the unusual but at the same time don't have a wide audience, the synthesizer sound we normally here in, say, a pop song isn't especially diverse—it's that "synth sound."eumaas wrote:Eh, the timbral possibilities of a Minimoog are incredibly wide and dwarf that of any acoustic instrument, so I think you have the wrong impression there. I think the chocolate and vanilla of this situation is digital synthesis designed to sound like common acoustic instruments, not analogue synthesis, which are sounds that did not occur before the mid-20th century and have greater timbral depth and breadth than acoustic instruments.
The DX-7 was a horrible thing to happen to synthesis, in my opinion. Fucking record after record of identical 6-op FM synth presets. Garbage digital sound. Eno fucking loved it, though, so hey.
I strongly recommend checking out I Dream of Wires, and then Bright Sparks if you still have an interest after that.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
Right, and that's kind of my curiosity—is this a human/Western cultural thing, or is it a product of technology? What has driven this narrowing use of an instrument with very wide possibilities? It's the kind of question I'd ask students because becomes applicable—potentially, at least—to what drives history. Does technology change behaviour or does it just focus human behaviour? We have all kinds of amazing gadgets, yet use them for simple things, mostly rejecting the greater capabilities. Why? I have no answer, but our relationship to technology is something I'm interested in in a historical context.eumaas wrote:It isn't terribly diverse now, and that's gotten worse over time, particularly as digital synthesis and sampling have come to dominant the field.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
My own personal experience:Dr. Medulla wrote:Right, and that's kind of my curiosity—is this a human/Western cultural thing, or is it a product of technology? What has driven this narrowing use of an instrument with very wide possibilities? It's the kind of question I'd ask students because becomes applicable—potentially, at least—to what drives history. Does technology change behaviour or does it just focus human behaviour? We have all kinds of amazing gadgets, yet use them for simple things, mostly rejecting the greater capabilities. Why? I have no answer, but our relationship to technology is something I'm interested in in a historical context.eumaas wrote:It isn't terribly diverse now, and that's gotten worse over time, particularly as digital synthesis and sampling have come to dominant the field.
If I'm playing one of my analogue synths, I'm likely to dial in a sound with a lot of trial and error until I find something that sounds good. Sometimes this is an unexpected sound.
If I'm using a software synth on my computer, then I'm flipping through presets until one sounds ok. But once I have it, I don't touch it much, whereas on the analogue, I've usually got a hand on the filter cutoff.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
Is it a tactile thing, do you think? That a computer keyboard doesn't have that physical feedback and sense that you're doing something?eumaas wrote:My own personal experience:Dr. Medulla wrote:Right, and that's kind of my curiosity—is this a human/Western cultural thing, or is it a product of technology? What has driven this narrowing use of an instrument with very wide possibilities? It's the kind of question I'd ask students because becomes applicable—potentially, at least—to what drives history. Does technology change behaviour or does it just focus human behaviour? We have all kinds of amazing gadgets, yet use them for simple things, mostly rejecting the greater capabilities. Why? I have no answer, but our relationship to technology is something I'm interested in in a historical context.eumaas wrote:It isn't terribly diverse now, and that's gotten worse over time, particularly as digital synthesis and sampling have come to dominant the field.
If I'm playing one of my analogue synths, I'm likely to dial in a sound with a lot of trial and error until I find something that sounds good. Sometimes this is an unexpected sound.
If I'm using a software synth on my computer, then I'm flipping through presets until one sounds ok. But once I have it, I don't touch it much, whereas on the analogue, I've usually got a hand on the filter cutoff.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
That's how it works for me too, though I will sometimes add strange effects. In my case, it's simply easier and more intuitive to change things on a physical synth than it is on a computer, because you have at least one level of disconnect from the program via the mouse. With a physical device, you need only raise your hand to the knob and turn it. Doing it that way also helps you remember where the knob was before you touched it, in case you need to get back to a previous sound. I find that on a computer, anything I do musically is lost to the sands of my memory unless I'm really paying attention, which I tend not to when I'm experimenting.Dr. Medulla wrote:Is it a tactile thing, do you think? That a computer keyboard doesn't have that physical feedback and sense that you're doing something?eumaas wrote:My own personal experience:Dr. Medulla wrote:Right, and that's kind of my curiosity—is this a human/Western cultural thing, or is it a product of technology? What has driven this narrowing use of an instrument with very wide possibilities? It's the kind of question I'd ask students because becomes applicable—potentially, at least—to what drives history. Does technology change behaviour or does it just focus human behaviour? We have all kinds of amazing gadgets, yet use them for simple things, mostly rejecting the greater capabilities. Why? I have no answer, but our relationship to technology is something I'm interested in in a historical context.eumaas wrote:It isn't terribly diverse now, and that's gotten worse over time, particularly as digital synthesis and sampling have come to dominant the field.
If I'm playing one of my analogue synths, I'm likely to dial in a sound with a lot of trial and error until I find something that sounds good. Sometimes this is an unexpected sound.
If I'm using a software synth on my computer, then I'm flipping through presets until one sounds ok. But once I have it, I don't touch it much, whereas on the analogue, I've usually got a hand on the filter cutoff.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
One of the (sub)arguments that Cateforis makes is that the synthesizer, in terms of performance, was more disconnected from traditional playing, and in that way merged human and machine in ways that was distinct from, say, a guitarist and his instrument. Cateforis doesn't make a connection to labour criticism in the 20th c, but plenty of observers (not just Marxists) saw a merging of human and machine as related to lack of satisfaction gained from labour. What you and Gene suggest, if I'm understanding you properly, is that an analogue synth does generate a satisfaction comparable to traditional playing, but perhaps digital work doesn't.Kory wrote:That's how it works for me too, though I will sometimes add strange effects. In my case, it's simply easier and more intuitive to change things on a physical synth than it is on a computer, because you have at least one level of disconnect from the program via the mouse. With a physical device, you need only raise your hand to the knob and turn it. Doing it that way also helps you remember where the knob was before you touched it, in case you need to get back to a previous sound. I find that on a computer, anything I do musically is lost to the sands of my memory unless I'm really paying attention, which I tend not to when I'm experimenting.Dr. Medulla wrote:Is it a tactile thing, do you think? That a computer keyboard doesn't have that physical feedback and sense that you're doing something?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
I would say that's true. It helps that there's still a keyboard connected, so one is actually playing something and then modifying the sound. If you're only generating a single tone through the synth and modifying it (something akin to Pink Floyd's "On the Run") I could see there being less satisfaction. In my case, I just think I get more fine control from a knob in my hand (heh) than I do from a cursor affecting a tiny knob on a screen controlled by a mouse. A lot of computer synths mimic the look of physical synths, so it's kind of frustrating that they haven't come up with something that's more fluid from a UX perspective. It just doesn't translate as easily.Dr. Medulla wrote:One of the (sub)arguments that Cateforis makes is that the synthesizer, in terms of performance, was more disconnected from traditional playing, and in that way merged human and machine in ways that was distinct from, say, a guitarist and his instrument. Cateforis doesn't make a connection to labour criticism in the 20th c, but plenty of observers (not just Marxists) saw a merging of human and machine as related to lack of satisfaction gained from labour. What you and Gene suggest, if I'm understanding you properly, is that an analogue synth does generate a satisfaction comparable to traditional playing, but perhaps digital work doesn't.Kory wrote:That's how it works for me too, though I will sometimes add strange effects. In my case, it's simply easier and more intuitive to change things on a physical synth than it is on a computer, because you have at least one level of disconnect from the program via the mouse. With a physical device, you need only raise your hand to the knob and turn it. Doing it that way also helps you remember where the knob was before you touched it, in case you need to get back to a previous sound. I find that on a computer, anything I do musically is lost to the sands of my memory unless I'm really paying attention, which I tend not to when I'm experimenting.Dr. Medulla wrote:Is it a tactile thing, do you think? That a computer keyboard doesn't have that physical feedback and sense that you're doing something?
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
That and getting hot- and cold-running chicks.Kory wrote:As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
They love it when I tickle the plastic ivories.Dr. Medulla wrote:That and getting hot- and cold-running chicks.Kory wrote:As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
Who you calling stoic, buster!Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
I used to go and watch XTC at their early gigs and this guy was never still.Kory wrote:As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread
Hard, not impossible.Marky Dread wrote:I used to go and watch XTC at their early gigs and this guy was never still.Kory wrote:As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.Dr. Medulla wrote:This all something for me to muse about given the common perception of critics (and even some proponents) of how the synthesizer isn't "really playing," that it's quite passive. Apart from the prog weirdos with their banks and banks of synths, hopping about, the appearance of the synth guy in the band is generally quite stoic compared to the standard rock poses. It's a neat oddity in terms of labour and performance in rock and what it conveys. Expectations, really, of what performance is supposed to look like.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc