The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

General music discussion.
eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by eumaas »

matedog wrote:To muddy the waters a bit, is mellotron considered a synthesizer? Or is it just a glorified tape player?
The mellotron is basically an analogue sampler.
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

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
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.
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."
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.

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

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115983
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla »

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.
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.
"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

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
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.
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.
My own personal experience:

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

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115983
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
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.
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.
My own personal experience:

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.
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

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Kory »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
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.
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.
My own personal experience:

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.
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?
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.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115983
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Kory wrote:
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?
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.
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.
"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

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Kory »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Kory wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115983
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla »

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

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Kory »

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.
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115983
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Kory wrote:
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.
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.
That and getting hot- and cold-running chicks.
"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

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Kory »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Kory wrote:
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.
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.
That and getting hot- and cold-running chicks.
They love it when I tickle the plastic ivories.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58881
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Marky Dread »

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.
Who you calling stoic, buster!
Image
Image

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
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58881
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Marky Dread »

Kory wrote:
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.
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.
I used to go and watch XTC at their early gigs and this guy was never still.
Image
Image

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

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Eumaas Synthesizer Thread

Post by Kory »

Marky Dread wrote:
Kory wrote:
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.
As you can imagine, it's really hard to play a stationary instrument and leap about the stage. Probably why the keytar was invented.
I used to go and watch XTC at their early gigs and this guy was never still.
Image
Hard, not impossible.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Post Reply