A bit of a rant. State of tech in 2020.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

It is a basic function of sequencers, odd that it is omitted, and odd that it isn’t expanded, like say playing the sequencer ‘live’ and having the pattern order and ALL the live variations recorded into the song, like motion sequencing on the first korg electribes.

you can ‘live’ play to record the song mode on the TR-08.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

I think part of the challenge with sequencers is there's no one size fits all. For some songs a simple step sequencer will suffice, or even define the track full stop, for others nothing short of a DAW will fulfill one's vision.

[PrimateSynthesis]

One thing that stands out to me is the lack of new hardware samplers.

The problem with software is that you never actually own it. I don't know how many thousands of dollars in software I've bought over the years that I can no longer use due to changes in the hardware platform or operating system.

[Nelson Baboon]

procrastination mode....I mentioned the xpander earlier as an example of a 1980s synth that is multimbral, but in thinking about it, I think that it presents a good example of a particular analog/digital setup (analog sound with digital control) where modern technology has really made things much better. I am struck by how a vaguely similar synth (only paraphonic but not polyphonic, let alone multimbral) with analog sound and lots of digital control, manifests extremely more powerful digital technology. (motas-6) I think that a lot of people have tried an xpander - I think i have finally realized that I'll get frustrated with it. Lots of modulations, easy to set up drones, lfos can be reallllllllly slow, lots of great stuff. But it's like it's always struggling. The envelopes are sluggish, and this lack of power manifests itself in other ways that I'd have to struggle to remember.....then there is a contempary synth, the motas, which just has a seemingly incredible amount of modulation, and it just fucking works like you'd expect.

maybe a boring example, but I had the choice of not mentioning it, or mentioning it hoping that maybe it's a little relevant.

The hydrasynth is totally digital, but again - incredible amounts of modulation, and it all works great. Nothing to compare to it, really, from back in the 1990s....the waldorf q is the example that comes to mind, but there are far, far fewer modulations, and less flexibility.

of course, we should all be driving around in flying cars, and have those huge heads that they always used to portray future humans with in comic books.

on a slightly off topic rant - what bothers me about not technically owning software is not even so much that it can stop running after the next os update - it's that companies use that technology to limit your rights to sell it. I mean, i fucking own it, and I should be able to sell it. When companies charge a fee for this, or outright forbid it, I don't 'rent' from them again.

[ahmo]

To tel the truth I don’t know half the people working on stuff now, but Buchla and AR Pearlman were NASA contractors, David Cockrell of EMS working with computers to make sequencers and samplers and then working with Akai on sampling and sequencing in the MPC’s, Dave Rossum was working on sampling and juicing the technology so much (just the SP-1200 interface and sequencing was revolutionary for a product they didn’t put that mich thought into) then went on to soundcards, saying when tech is cutting edge the top engineers are there, creating markets. I suppose todaybis the folden age of sequencing, but really more the dawn of technology.

Now lots of products fuck up the basics. I even think the new modular craze is like the beginning of synthesizers again, when we get say hardwored synths with modular flexibility (chroma, xpander, music easel like) but with modern eyes and pushing beyond what was on the far horizon then will be very interesting to me. New interfaces especially, the Linnstrument and continuum type stuff is in that direction, but some crazy lazer harp stuff could be in the future.

Yeah midi clock sync should be cake for these guys, but even in the age of simulation it escapes them.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

I even think the new modular craze is like the beginning of synthesizers again, when we get say hardwored synths with modular flexibility (chroma, xpander, music easel like) but with modern eyes and pushing beyond what was on the far horizon then will be very interesting to me.

we already have hardware synths that are modulars in a box. The Nord G series and John Bowens Solaris are standouts in the realm. Lots of hardware units coming out have massively flexible mod matrixes with enough routing sources and destinations to do some major damage.

im always pretty intrigued by what boundaries everyone expects synthesizers to have to push to be considered innovative. im not in the mindset that its some sort of limitless technology. we have plenty of options, more than any other instrument of choice tbh.

[Uncle Meatball]

This may just be me not getting the point, but it seem to me that so long as developments in music making technology are driven by thinking about what the gear can do rather than musical concerns, it's bound to be a dead end. All acoustic instruments have developed historically in response to the needs of the music of their time, but I don't see that so much with electronic instruments which are more about "features".

Now I don't know much about what you crazy kids are doing with all this hardware, I'm stuck in the 18th century and the Sixties musically myself, but how demanding are techno or EDM (generically) really in terms of instrumentation? What are musicians demanding in new gear in response to the musical limitations of the gear they already have? It seems to me that attention to that side of things would be more fruitful for someone wanting to develop a new piece of kit.

Polyphonic aftertouch is a case in point imo. How many people can really control each finger separately at a variety of speeds to make it something useful rather than just a feature? OK I guess if you're playing long slow droney chords, then it might be useful, but I don't really see an application in most kinds of keyboard music. It's a feature we've been conditioned to want by the need to see innovation around every corner, but it's not actually that useful in practice.

Innovation is great of course, but tbh I don't hear that much innovative music following in the wake of all this technological innovation, because the technology is developing in response to a consumer demand for technical novelty rather than really musical goals. And also because the music - within a handful of major types - all sounds basically the same to anyone who isn't a total genre connoisseur. So it seems to me, anyway.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

This may just be me not getting the point, but it seem to me that so long as developments in music making technology are driven by thinking about what the gear can do rather than musical concerns, it's bound to be a dead end. All acoustic instruments have developed historically in response to the needs of the music of their time, but I don't see that so much with electronic instruments which are more about "features".

Now I don't know much about what you crazy kids are doing with all this hardware, I'm stuck in the 18th century and the Sixties musically myself, but how demanding are techno or EDM (generically) really in terms of instrumentation? What are musicians demanding in new gear in response to the musical limitations of the gear they already have? It seems to me that attention to that side of things would be more fruitful for someone wanting to develop a new piece of kit.

Polyphonic aftertouch is a case in point imo. How many people can really control each finger separately at a variety of speeds to make it something useful rather than just a feature? OK I guess if you're playing long slow droney chords, then it might be useful, but I don't really see an application in most kinds of keyboard music. It's a feature we've been conditioned to want by the need to see innovation around every corner, but it's not actually that useful in practice.

Innovation is great of course, but tbh I don't hear that much innovative music following in the wake of all this technological innovation, because the technology is developing in response to a consumer demand for technical novelty rather than really musical goals. And also because the music - within a handful of major types - all sounds basically the same to anyone who isn't a total genre connoisseur. So it seems to me, anyway.

[JimY]

I fired this old thing up recently...

...and that of course only does MIDI. I find it hard to believe something that looks like it and acts like it that can also do audio doesn't seem to exist. I'd still use Sweet16 a lot, only I never got on with the piano-roll edit (it's easier to delete the take and record it again!) and the single level undo-redo is unreliable (never know what it acts on).
Anyway, the Song mode is great and per track internal looping. Also, one extra pattern that can run through the complete song in parallel. It's a copy of the old Emagic pre-Logic sequencers.

[onthebandwagon]

This may just be me not getting the point, but it seem to me that so long as developments in music making technology are driven by thinking about what the gear can do rather than musical concerns, it's bound to be a dead end. All acoustic instruments have developed historically in response to the needs of the music of their time, but I don't see that so much with electronic instruments which are more about "features".

Now I don't know much about what you crazy kids are doing with all this hardware, I'm stuck in the 18th century and the Sixties musically myself, but how demanding are techno or EDM (generically) really in terms of instrumentation? What are musicians demanding in new gear in response to the musical limitations of the gear they already have? It seems to me that attention to that side of things would be more fruitful for someone wanting to develop a new piece of kit.

Polyphonic aftertouch is a case in point imo. How many people can really control each finger separately at a variety of speeds to make it something useful rather than just a feature? OK I guess if you're playing long slow droney chords, then it might be useful, but I don't really see an application in most kinds of keyboard music. It's a feature we've been conditioned to want by the need to see innovation around every corner, but it's not actually that useful in practice.

Innovation is great of course, but tbh I don't hear that much innovative music following in the wake of all this technological innovation, because the technology is developing in response to a consumer demand for technical novelty rather than really musical goals. And also because the music - within a handful of major types - all sounds basically the same to anyone who isn't a total genre connoisseur. So it seems to me, anyway.

I think your self imposed hardware limitations served your creativity well.

[Nelson Baboon]

are "what the gear can do" and "musical concerns" always mutually exclusive? Don't you kind of cook the books by presupposing that manufacturers don't care about making music? If we frame it differently - like maybe 'giving musicians more tools to decide themselves about the musical concerns", perhaps some of the technology isn't as 'anti-music' as you imply?

How does music have needs? I'm not sure I quite understand that, unless you're talking about stuff like building violins that can carry in a concert hall better, etc. Maybe I'm unfamiliar with the history. But it seems to me that primarily it's people that have the needs, and I think that many (if not most) manufacturers try to help them. And then again, if we look at it as 'wants' and not 'needs', i think that we even more see this as less of an 'anti-music' enterprise.

What is happening in cases where we have manufacturers working with musicians to address their concerns, implement requested features, etc?

of course (trying not to get political) there are economic concerns that can distort the purpose of some (maybe mostly larger) manufacturers, but I've certainly worked with and talked to some smaller ones who seem very dedicated to making tools that help musicians make and develop their music. And to some degree there is less clear of a path than it might have been hundreds of years ago, when building a better instrument, etc, was simply a matter of the builders figuring out how to make that work.

And in the past we didn't have compositional technology. One might complain at length that such tools like sequencers, even algorithmic tools, etc, and even things like polyphonic, multimbral synthesizers, are actually good for music, but I cannot see how they are bad things. Maybe coming from it from a different angle - I think that the democratisation of the making of music is a fantastic thing. The fact that there may be more mediocre music around now doesn't mean that there isn't good music.

As far as the technology dramatically changing music for the better? I mean, how many years have we had to discern the music that will be remembered 100 years from now? Did such dramatic trends happen every few years in the past? I think that it's far, far too soon to simply deprecate the music today. Kinds of sounds like a lot of the adults when I was growing up, who would simply dismiss all of the popular music of the day compared to their era.....

as far as there being tools that most people don't use properly or well.....I don't quite get it. I don't use polyphonic aftertouch much these days, but I remember it as being pretty fucking cool. I'm not really sure that this is one of those 'false needs' that we have been conditioned to want.

While no trend is ever 100% positive, or even close to it, when I look at what is available today, when compared to 30 years ago, or 300, I can't help but be pretty fucking excited, which doesn't mean that everything has proceeded exactly the way that everyone would want.

This may just be me not getting the point, but it seem to me that so long as developments in music making technology are driven by thinking about what the gear can do rather than musical concerns, it's bound to be a dead end. All acoustic instruments have developed historically in response to the needs of the music of their time, but I don't see that so much with electronic instruments which are more about "features".

Now I don't know much about what you crazy kids are doing with all this hardware, I'm stuck in the 18th century and the Sixties musically myself, but how demanding are techno or EDM (generically) really in terms of instrumentation? What are musicians demanding in new gear in response to the musical limitations of the gear they already have? It seems to me that attention to that side of things would be more fruitful for someone wanting to develop a new piece of kit.

Polyphonic aftertouch is a case in point imo. How many people can really control each finger separately at a variety of speeds to make it something useful rather than just a feature? OK I guess if you're playing long slow droney chords, then it might be useful, but I don't really see an application in most kinds of keyboard music. It's a feature we've been conditioned to want by the need to see innovation around every corner, but it's not actually that useful in practice.

Innovation is great of course, but tbh I don't hear that much innovative music following in the wake of all this technological innovation, because the technology is developing in response to a consumer demand for technical novelty rather than really musical goals. And also because the music - within a handful of major types - all sounds basically the same to anyone who isn't a total genre connoisseur. So it seems to me, anyway.

[Uncle Meatball]

I think your self imposed hardware limitations served your creativity well.

It's much simpler than that. I just can't afford the nice things I'd like to have

[stepvhen]

What does “song mode” in a hardware sequencer give you, that having a library of patterns you can perform as a song does not? In a “studio” setting you can use a DAW, in a performance setting, you’re already piloting the hovercraft. What’s the advantage to having a chain of patterns stored as opposed to having to “perform” it?

I'm just guessing, but you could prepare a consistent live set without putting a laptop on stage; use effects or play over the top of the song as its going live; if the sequencer has song mode and CV out, you know it will interface with the rest of your gear without much headache; any key/button based interface is going to be faster than a mouse, so theres an ease of use factor; maybe you have the money to spend on audio equipment but for whatever reason don't have or want to spend it on a powerful enough computer to run these resource intensive programs.

It's probably less about the functionality and more about the interface/experience itself.

[phesago]

IDK maybe its just me but I'm kind of happy with the available technology in terms of synths/gear. What do we think tech is going to bring us past what we already have?

[Koekepan]

What I really want in a sequencer is something that will comfortably support the creation of a romantic style symphony, a monteverdian madrigal, and psychedelic ambient work.

They're not that different from each other. Linear development, complex harmonies, careful timing and at least some scope for multidimensional modulations.

Don't get me wrong, I like my Social Entropy Engine very much, but the last couple of pieces I did I used my KORG Kross to perform lines and record them in the sequencer - and this is not because the Kross has a great sequencer.

The killer feature that I'd love to see is some equivalent to the onion skinning that computer animation software offers, where you can compare your current frame to prior and possibly following ones to get smooth animation results. I'd like to see other tracks overlaid on the current one so that I can make sure that I got complex harmonies right without constantly flipping back and forth. Right now the top option for that is scoring software, which isn't the ideal interface for working with multiple synths.

Can the MPC series do that?

[Bignatius]

I'd like to strangle folks to near death over the rampant lack of individual outputs.

Stop it, right now, you insufferable twots. (Looking at you, Elektron Cycles/Digi).

Quit thinking the hobbled, tiny, inadequate mixers and fx you build in are remotely enough to not need others.

Everything needn't be some cutesy, ultraportable, cheap doodad you can jam on the Subway with.

[gruebleengourd]

Running everything at once is a very different experience from overdubbing. Never did much of that, and still do not. Elektrons, and a Virus, with an Oberheim and a Novation Supernova approximate and expand the experience of yesteryear with the help of the 9000 stand-in, the MPC 1000 (still a super-power in my book) and the Social Entropy Engine.

Not essential for this thread at all, but for me, I do all my sequenced tracks at once. I do overdub, but always play overdubs live...

[gruebleengourd]

Polyphonic aftertouch is a case in point imo. How many people can really control each finger separately at a variety of speeds to make it something useful rather than just a feature? OK I guess if you're playing long slow droney chords, then it might be useful, but I don't really see an application in most kinds of keyboard music.

The biggest use IMO is for sequenced samples mapped across a keyboard. There is a reason almost every ensoniq had it. Built in sequencer and multisample layers.

[ahmo]

Solaris is still kind of an updated older idea. I’m thinking about the more adventurous modular stuff integrated into an instrument, like the music Easel, expressive, flexible, but with new ideas under your fingertips, etc.

Poly Aftertouch is a good example. Perhaps if it was widespread we would all be very good at using it in realtime, simply holding a chord and playing a lead or a bass on the same instrument would allow great movement in the sound of each note. For bringing in modulation on each note it seems quite like a violin where one finger wiggle just does the note on that finger, not also to the open strings playing as well.

The MPC’s use poly aftertouch (or something like it)for each pad in a drum program, which doesn’t need to be a drum sample, and it is quite useful. Excluding it was a cost issue, not a no one will use it issue.

To go on a bit of a tangent, it seems to me that futurism is pretty dead. When in the 60-70s people looked to the future of robots doing most of the hard stuff and people having great amounts of leisure time, the robots supposed to do all the work were found to be more expensive and provide less profit than just using slaves, which essencially everyone is doing with manufacturing in china. So looking to the future isn’t really very ‘modern’ since it’s this neo feudalism with simulations rather than actual futuristic advancements. What is very ‘modern’ turns out to be nostalgia for a time when the future held promise of something very different.

[GrantB]

This thread is really making me look forward to the Osmose.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

IDK maybe its just me but I'm kind of happy with the available technology in terms of synths/gear. What do we think tech is going to bring us past what we already have?

so much cool gear available now.

[phesago]

IDK maybe its just me but I'm kind of happy with the available technology in terms of synths/gear. What do we think tech is going to bring us past what we already have?

so much cool gear available now.

totally. im so lucky to be here/now

[ahmo]

[quote="Red Electric Rainbow" post_id=3341374 time=1599335122 user_id=3420

you can ‘live’ play to record the song mode on the TR-08.
[/quote]

You can also do this on the TR-808, I’m saying in all this gear without song mode, this stuff should be stabdard and flexed out.

It is particularly since we have so many great new designs out today that this conversation is relevant. Most gear that lasts listened to user feedback and what musicians wished they had access too.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

Most gear that lasts listened to user feedback and what musicians wished they had access too.

idk elektron still puts out every box without TR style pattern changes. cant think of a more asked for elektron feature but they still sell a shit ton of units

[ahmo]

Using the computer as a crutch to organize I guess. The DX 7 sold more than elektron boxes but still leaves a lot to be desired, selling doesn’t mean excelence necesarily.