interesting quote

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:18 pm

Hey all -- i thought i might share this quote i found online as it sums-up my feelings about most synthesis-design, in general (and is why i got into designing my own synths to begin with):

VANGELIS: The biggest problem is makers of synthesizers aren't musicians. The instruments are approached incorrectly. Alright, there's an enormous library of information, but you can't play the instruments, they hinder the spontaneous creativity. You buy a synthesizer and six months later, it's out of fashion. Then, a new one will appear which won't resemble the previous one at all. One should be working in the direction of a simpler, more human model. I don't want to lose time by reading every manual. What's the point of having a violin sound when you can't express yourself with it (no dynamics, vibrato, etc). They can implement all these things, but they prefer making instruments for the amateurs, the masses. When the CS-80 was released, I was euphoric; at last an instrument that responded, one with which you could communicate. Since then, no real instrument has been released over the world. The computer, instead of helping us, enforces it's way of thinking on me, and that's very dangerous. That's why I haven't bought such a machine ...

That said, I feel that SCOPE has allowed me to overcome this problem rather well.

-Stephen

http://www.track0.com/wavelength/

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:12 pm

I can't help but feeling that this kind of argument is also an expression of his lack of abilities to make the instrument respond.
In other words, it's like listening to bachelors axplanations to why they don't have a girlfriend....

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:44 pm

As a bachelor myself, I must say that I really like your work Mr. Wavelength.

Thomas

[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-10-25 22:45 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:34 pm

I'm not exactly a fan of Vangelis

but on that topic he's right.
Unfortunately my personal proof is also by Yamaha:

a DX200 groovebox, which is the tone generation of a DX7 plus a filter/FX section (you'll love the SFP filters after that) and a pattern sequencer à la Roland with knob extension.
It is a 'live' machine, but all the knobs are pots with immediate activation of the position value when touched.
When switching patterns the machine keeps the current tempo and overrides the stored value (a great feature !) but all the knobs now have the wrong position - happy tweaking...
You can mute the pattern synth track and play it via keyboard (great !) but they block aftertouch ???
The same soundboard (PLG-150-DX) supports aftertouch in any other synth.
For performing you frequently need the 'shift' key, a tiny rubber pad inmidst a flock of similiar ones. The pads are illuminated for stage use, but to hit that thingy is only half the challenge, the rest is a ctrl-alt-del like finger exercise (well, almost).
The signal always passes the filter/fx section - the SNR is about 7 dB worse an original TX7. etc etc

I truely like the thingy and imho Yamaha put a lot of efforts into the factory patterns and presets, but the handling is contrary to the propected use - hard to get as Yamaha is certainly an experienced company and has the resources to build this as expected.

cheers, Tom

ps: yes Stephen, in the musical context you truely succeeded with your synth designs

But a tactible surface would be really great.
Seems I'm condemned as you and have to write my own.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:51 am

Did Vangelis really say that? I can't believe he can be that idiotic.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:56 am

On 2003-10-26 01:51, Shayne White wrote:
Did Vangelis really say that? I can't believe he can be that idiotic.

I don't see what is idiotic about desiring an expressive and musical instrument via synthesis.

Why just say something is "idiotic" without explaining your point of view? Why is his quote "idiotic, in your view?

The "you're stupid" arguement, without backing it up, just makes the poster look silly, no?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:02 am

I was euphoric; at last an instrument that responded, one with which you could communicate.

I can relate to this. As I fiddle with a new instrument (a physical one) each has its own way of communicating, or giving you feedback. I assume Vangelis was searching for something similar from the early synths. Of course, the synths of the time were probably too dull for him.

I agree that not too many electronic or digital instrument has the dynamic response of a physical instrument. Even the best Giga samples can't capture this because they're more of a "your note input->someone else's awesome performance" type of mechanism which totally ruins a concept of an instrument. Giga is one step short of becoming a realtime multitrack audio sequencer.

With a physical instrument, there are so many parameters you can just "play" in realtime, where as it would take hours of knob tweaking and MIDI editing with synths.

Perhaps the problem is with the generic keyboard+knobs and wheels design and not so much the synth itself.

But of course, that's if you were to compare synths to physical instruments... which isn't a very good comparison. Built to do different things if you ask me.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:03 am

On 2003-10-25 22:12, petal wrote:
I can't help but feeling that this kind of argument is also an expression of his lack of abilities to make the instrument respond.
In other words, it's like listening to bachelors axplanations to why they don't have a girlfriend....

I've never heard of anybody referring to Vangelis as impotent in the expression department before! (I've heard the opposite though... that he can be overly "gushy" at times, for some people's tastes)

Saying that Vangelis doesn't know his way around a synth is kinda like saying Einstein was mentally retarded, to me.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:05 am

On 2003-10-25 22:44, petal wrote:
As a bachelor myself, I must say that I really like your work Mr. Wavelength.

Thomas

[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-10-25 22:45 ]

I only hope that by this you mean that you have been able to find musical inspiration in my designs, ie: you've written a bunch of satisfying music with them!

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:10 am

ya, or like Stradivari didn't know his violins.
Vangelis pushed the synths of the time to its maximum potential, and still wasn't happy with it. Thing is, people like him will never be content with what already exists because the creative mind always thinks in terms of what can be created from what already exists. Give Vangelis a Scope or whatever modern synth, and he'd still be complaining about it. Complaint is good. It drives the R&D department forward. hehe.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:16 am

On 2003-10-25 23:34, astroman wrote:
I'm not exactly a fan of Vangelis but on that topic he's right.
Unfortunately my personal proof is also by Yamaha:

a DX200 groovebox, which is the tone generation of a DX7 plus a filter/FX section (you'll love the SFP filters after that) and a pattern sequencer à la Roland with knob extension.
It is a 'live' machine, but all the knobs are pots with immediate activation of the position value when touched.
When switching patterns the machine keeps the current tempo and overrides the stored value (a great feature !) but all the knobs now have the wrong position - happy tweaking...
You can mute the pattern synth track and play it via keyboard (great !) but they block aftertouch ???
The same soundboard (PLG-150-DX) supports aftertouch in any other synth.
For performing you frequently need the 'shift' key, a tiny rubber pad inmidst a flock of similiar ones. The pads are illuminated for stage use, but to hit that thingy is only half the challenge, the rest is a ctrl-alt-del like finger exercise (well, almost).
The signal always passes the filter/fx section - the SNR is about 7 dB worse an original TX7. etc etc

I truely like the thingy and imho Yamaha put a lot of efforts into the factory patterns and presets, but the handling is contrary to the propected use - hard to get as Yamaha is certainly an experienced company and has the resources to build this as expected.

cheers, Tom

ps: yes Stephen, in the musical context you truely succeeded with your synth designs
But a tactible surface would be really great.
Seems I'm condemned as you and have to write my own.

It is sad but true that the ability to properly perform on a software synthesizer is due, in large part, to the quality of the tactile controller(s) you are using... and this is frustratingly out of the designer's hands! Like, for example, my synths feature a lot of aftertouch control and many keyboard controllers do not support aftertouch... sad.

Companies like Yamaha and Roland have lately been criticized for recently favouring features/cost-control over sound-quality and "hands-on" expressiveness... Roland's new V-Synth seems to be attempting to address this, however.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:50 am

Perhaps the problem is with the generic keyboard+knobs and wheels design and not so much the synth itself.

But of course, that's if you were to compare synths to physical instruments... which isn't a very good comparison. Built to do different things if you ask me.

I have always been of the belief that with velocity and aftertouch (preferably polyphonic) control, over multiple parameters, one can achieve a level of expressiveness with analogue synthesis (subtractive or even FM) akin to that of an acoustic instrument... Vangelis' work on the CS-80 is proof of this, i think.

One can patch a sound with knobs and faders and switches and then bring expressiveness to the sound via the instrument's performance features (velocity, key-follow, aftertouch, mod-wheels, etc) + with a quick hand a musician can even add knob-twiddling into the performance.

it would seem that modern sequencing with synthesizers has made knob twiddling the only focus, while the sequencer does all of the real playing.

it's actually hard to think of anybody really *playing* a synth these days, unless it's one of the Korg sample-based keyboards everyone uses for *real*-string-sounds and such in bands (or Yanni... at the World Series... ugh).

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 6:15 am

On 2003-10-26 03:50, wavelength wrote:
I have always been of the belief that with velocity and aftertouch (preferably polyphonic) control, over multiple parameters, one can achieve a level of expressiveness with analogue synthesis (subtractive or even FM) akin to that of an acoustic instrument...

I agree, the Casio DH200 midi sax has only note on/off, velocity and aftertouch as midi functions, but with 3-6 parameters on aftertouch you get pretty close to the way a real world instrument reacts.
The emphasis is on 'the way it reacts' - it cannot and should never be considered a real sax, whatever samples or processing applied.
Though it translates the basic feel of a reed instrument you have to adjust your way of playing to it's oddities and of course find and tune the proper sounds.
I guess Casio considered it as a 'serious' instrument when it was released, but later all their stuff got that toy image.
On the other hand, if they succeeded so well with the aftertouch control - why the hell doesn't it sense lips pressure ??? Here we go again...

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-10-26 06:22 ]

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:26 am

I play almost all of my synth melody/bass/chord lines via keyboard, and I can get plenty of expression. Sad feelings, happy feelings, edgy feelings, and there's plenty of control. If he can't get any emotion or feelings into his synthesizers, I tend to think there's something wrong with him. Try playing a harpsichord -- note on, note off. That's it. Synthesizers are far more expressive. I've never heard people going around complaining about harpsichords (except they're difficult to handle).

As for the comment about computers, if anything has "drawn me into the way *it* works", it's harp (which is my first instrument). I tend to play my keyboards like a harp, and find it hard to play any other *kind* of instrument (I'm still much more comfortable playing with two hands than one). So I feel I'm being controlled much more by my harp than my computer.

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself in my last message, but it was really late and I was on my way to bed!

Yours musically,

Shayne
http://www.shaynesworld.com

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:59 am

I wonder why Mr. Vangelis, with his not incosiderable earnings, does not approach a custom builder to make him a MIDI controller which would satisfy his control needs? I think that pretty much all synthesizers nowadays have an insane amount of parameters to access.. the problem of course is that the control is not always there. However, if Mr. Vangelis has an idea, it really would cost him very little to get someone to build something satisfactory to him.

If, on the other hand, he is bemoaning the type of control paradigms we have on synthesizers, then maybe he has a point. I don't think that synths *have* to approach sound design by means of knobs for cutoff/reso/etc... this paradigm was invented in the 60s or whatever to fit in with the technology of the day. However, this kind of method is not all that intuitive (I know it's a standard but I think that's because it's 'all we know' and have got accustomed to it), and could be replaced with more human-friendly designs. I think it's certainly true that the 'knob-fest' approach does not really translate well to computers and mouse control.

I'm not claiming to have the ideas by the way, folks, but hopefully some skilled enough people will try to advance this art by being truly innovative.

peace

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:33 pm

On 2003-10-26 10:26, Shayne White wrote:
I play almost all of my synth melody/bass/chord lines via keyboard, and I can get plenty of expression. Sad feelings, happy feelings, edgy feelings, and there's plenty of control. If he can't get any emotion or feelings into his synthesizers, I tend to think there's something wrong with him. Try playing a harpsichord -- note on, note off. That's it. Synthesizers are far more expressive. I've never heard people going around complaining about harpsichords (except they're difficult to handle).

As for the comment about computers, if anything has "drawn me into the way *it* works", it's harp (which is my first instrument). I tend to play my keyboards like a harp, and find it hard to play any other *kind* of instrument (I'm still much more comfortable playing with two hands than one). So I feel I'm being controlled much more by my harp than my computer.

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself in my last message, but it was really late and I was on my way to bed!

Yours musically,

Shayne
http://www.shaynesworld.com

well, i think you'd have to admit that a harpsichord is not a very expressive instrument, a player is left with basically the choice of notes and the relative speed of these notes away from eachother. that incessant plucking sound drives me crazy! one would choose a harpsichord purely for its timbre-quality and not for its expressiveness... a piano would be the more obvious choice for expression, would it not? or, indeed, a harp!

i think that what Vangelis is hinting at with comments like his desire for "a simpler, more human model" is an instrument closer to something like a piano, but expanded... gestural and intuitive. something that invites expression... you must know the feeling of sitting in front of a beautifully-made grand piano, it's inspiring in its apparent simplicity, but also in its immediate ability to convey artistic nuances.

i think that what Vangelis was saying is not that he wasn't able to achieve any level of expressiveness, but that he wasn't satisfied with the level of expressiveness that could be achieved with synths and the intuitiveness (or lack thereof) of said synths.

what made the CS-80 so powerful in his hands (and expressive in his compositions... think Blade Runner), was not the subtractive nature of the synth (it's oscillators and filters), but the ability for the synth to be gesturally controlled in a sophisticated but still intuitive way. the CS-80's synthesis architecture is relatively simplistic by today's standards with only the basic waveshapes (and only two oscillators per voice), simple filters (only 12dB, no self-oscillation), very simplistic envelopes, etc... but it's gestural control features are hard to match (maybe only surpassed by the GX-1?), especially for a purely analogue synthesizer... and this made all the difference.

it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of focus is put on a any given synth's sawtooth-shape in an oscilloscope, or its filter-character (all still important, of course), but without also properly (and equally) addressing the question of intuitiveness and gestural expression.

The Hartmann Neuron seems interesting in this regard (and for big bucks), but still, apparently, has a ways to go with its architecture (see latest SOS article).

For our own platform, an excellent example would be John Bowen's "Prophet Plus"... it's the "Plus" that makes all the difference. He takes an already great (and established) synth-engine (Prophet 5) and adds gestural controls, giving the classic sound a whole new life, without making the synth's architecture hideously complicated.

I have also strived to achieve this in my "uberPLASTIC", one can take it from a soft moan to a violent scream without taking your hands off the keyboard (via aftertouch/ velocity). I wanted it to be a very "nuance-friendly" instrument, without making it overly-complicated.

one needs a great master keyboard to fully-appreciate such things, however.

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-10-26 14:44 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:12 pm

I do agree with Vangelis, but perhaps not in the way some of you disagree, I mean, not because of the same perception of his words. I understood it differently.

I think it is important to take into account the KIND of music people do, above all. For some electronic kind of music, the expressiveness Vangelis is willing to encounter in new synthesizers is just useless, not even searched and so, discovered.

In most forums around, people talk this way: “Wow, next week I’m going to get a Virus cos it sounds really nice”, etc. I have never read somebody saying: “Wow, I’m going to get a Virus cos it is soooo expressive”.

Expressiveness it is not a big concern in electronic music, at least, not for most of people into it, expressiveness is nevertheless essential to Vangelis music. You many like or dislike Vangelis music, no matter, but his latent is obvious, and his talent is specially pointing expressiveness.

If somebody doing for instance, hard industrial techno says what he said, it would make no sense to me.

Vangelis is a very sensitive, intelligent person, in words of those who are in touch with him, like a couple of Chilean people living in Greece who eventually work with him. She is a fusion musician and he is a fine art painter. They both are supported artistically as well as commercially by Vangelis and told us that Vangelis is a very special, extremely sensitive person.

I personally find that every Synth has its own place in my musical home. Every Synth is different an expresses different emotions in different ways. For instance, I love the Wavetable Synths from Korg, for many those sounds are jus uninspiring. It all depends on what kind of music you do, and the kind of person you are.

For me the line: “One should be working in the direction of a simpler, more human model.” Is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense. You know very well that great companies are becoming more and more commercial every hour, so instead of trying to truly satisfy the sensitivity of a few musicians out there, they just want to satisfy the hungry minds of the mass, willing for some great sounds, regardless of the fact that in 6 months, the trend will change to something completely different.

You may argue saying: “But what the hell is natural or unnatural”. I answer you: Ergonomics is a reality; natural fluidity of movements is a reality, natural ways of operation a machine are a reality, pleasant or unpleasant key touch is a reality. What Vangelis is complaining about, as I understand, is the fact that Synths are taking unnatural ways just to try selling into the market! And this is true!

I distinguish clearly two things:

ONE: advancements are great, desirable and fantastic, may them be coming all the time so we can go farther and farther into a more wide open world of possibilities and sounds.

TWO: going just to keep going, it’s not the right choice. Unnatural ways are not progression, evolution, but involution and regression.

I must say that I absolutely and completely believe that nature has a harmony in its laws, all a persona has to do to discover the greatest and nevertheless, simples things is hearing NATURE.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:02 am

On 2003-10-26 23:12, Nestor wrote:

I think it is important to take into account the KIND of music people do, above all. For some electronic kind of music, the expressiveness Vangelis is willing to encounter in new synthesizers is just useless, not even searched and so, discovered.

In most forums around, people talk this way: “Wow, next week I’m going to get a Virus cos it sounds really nice”, etc. I have never read somebody saying: “Wow, I’m going to get a Virus cos it is soooo expressive”.

Very true, some musical "styles" have emerged out of an instrument's limitations... Acid House comes to mind (303/909). Limitations are not always a bad thing, in this regard. Artists end up working with what is readily around them and affordable at the time. What is unpopular to some (and cast aside) becomes the main instrument for others.

The forms of modern electronic dance music have emerged from these more simplistic and strictly programmable synthesizers (and also the sampler and MIDI-sequencers).

The point is that some electronic artists desire to be more "hands-on" (read as: "no progamming", but rather: strictly performance-oriented) to compose their ideas (and create more organic musical stylings) and this requires a different approach to synthesizer-design/ performance... which has been neglected or out of reach (financially) for too long.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:17 am

You have expresed it much better than me, this is a perfect complement to what I said.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:04 pm

cool...