My opinions about imitations and their limitations

Hello List!

I really hope that some of you didn't get the wrong idea from my
points about acoustic instruments and their electronic imitations.
As I red my posts about this subject again I felt that I may have
exaggerated my opinions a little bit. Here's what I really think:

I believe we shouldn't use synths and computers only to imitate
existing instruments because we can do so much more with them. My
point was mainly about the potential of SYNTHESIS. Everyone knows
that the Raison D'etre of SAMPLERS is to record, manipulate and play
sounds to be used in pieces of music. Many of you who use samples of
acoustic instruments are extremely good at it and I enjoy your music
tremendously. With modern sampling technology and larger memories of
samplers one can reach to a point where no one can hear any
difference between an imitation and the real thing.

My apologies for anyone who misunderstood my views.

Kalle

stuff about synthetic imitations of real instruments --
reminded me of something i read just yesterday:

"... how determined people seem to be to aim for exactly the same
target again and again. a charitable interpretation: by doing so
they evolve better tools for everyone else, creating vocabulary
out of metaphor. like those pathetic computer artists who
are so thrilled when they've finally produced a picture of a daffodil
with a drop of dew upon it -- indistinguishable from a real photo.
to me this would represent a total failure, but in fact it's
probably those people who propel the evolution of tools."
-brian eno

--
. . . p f l y . . .
http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/duckapus.html
...the debut pfly CD...

Hey there,

{you wrote...}
>stuff about synthetic imitations of real instruments -- reminded me of >something i read just yesterday:
>
>"...to me this would represent a total failure, but in fact it's probably >those people who propel the evolution of tools." -brian eno

I'm just guessing that what Eno (and what maybe you also believe) is saying is that in the effort to do the immaculate recreation, they have built a tool that is even more powerful when harnessed to do something *other than imitation*. At least that is where *I* see the value and the power, though for people into samples for recreating we have come a long way.

The other thing is that a world-class sample of an acoustic instrument is only as good as the way it is used/performed. Play legato string samples with no idea of bowing, string phrasing, and such, and you will make it all sound *exactly* as if it is being triggered from a keyboard. Context and understanding is so meaningful in regard to samples.

A good friend of mine does film scores, and has the ear and sensitivity of a fine artist. He *knows* how to phrase like orchestral instruments (when that is what he is using), and so even his synth/sample 'mock-ups' sound strikingly realistic. I pointed out to Joe Pehrson an article in Keyboard a couple of months back about James Newton Howard and this aspect; if anyone is curious I'll dig up the url...

Cheers,
Jon

>--
>. . . p f l y . . .
> http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/duckapus.html
> ...the debut pfly CD...
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/
NOTE:
If your reply bounces, try --> jonszanto@...

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> I'm just guessing that what Eno (and what maybe you also believe) is
> saying is that in the effort to do the immaculate recreation, they have
> built a tool that is even more powerful when harnessed to do something
> *other than imitation*. At least that is where *I* see the value and
> the power, though for people into samples for recreating we have come a
> long way.

Well, I can't speak for Eno. But what I believe is that the obsession
with imitation has held back the potential of synthesisers. Most boxes
today aren't nearly as flexible as a TX81Z. Most of those that are do so
by pretending to be analog. What a step backwards!

> The other thing is that a world-class sample of an acoustic instrument
> is only as good as the way it is used/performed. Play legato string
> samples with no idea of bowing, string phrasing, and such, and you will
> make it all sound *exactly* as if it is being triggered from a
> keyboard. Context and understanding is so meaningful in regard to
> samples.

It's not clear whether you think this is a good or bad idea.

> A good friend of mine does film scores, and has the ear and sensitivity
> of a fine artist. He *knows* how to phrase like orchestral instruments
> (when that is what he is using), and so even his synth/sample
> 'mock-ups' sound strikingly realistic. I pointed out to Joe Pehrson an
> article in Keyboard a couple of months back about James Newton Howard
> and this aspect; if anyone is curious I'll dig up the url...

Yes, this is exactly the problem. All this effort to get a cheap
imitation of acoustic instruments. That does have its place, for people
who need a good mock-up or can't afford an orchestra to perform their
music. But as long as this is the goal of synthesiser design, they can't
be more than imitations of other instruments. What great musician would
take up an instrument on the expectation that they'll never make it to the
final recording? Or that the ultimate success is for nobody to realise
they're there?

Graham

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1928.html#1933

I pointed out to Joe Pehrson an article in Keyboard a
> couple of months back about James Newton Howard and this aspect; if
anyone
> is curious I'll dig up the url...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Yes, this would be useful. I appreciated the reference.
Unfortunately, my present set-up won't respond to all these
subtleties the way I would like to, so I'll have to find "other ways"
for now...

JP