|
presets don't cut it, time to programme, help! (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| daeus |
| Ok aside from these intellectual battles of whit, can anyone suggest some good presets/packs for basslines? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Instruments come in 2 catagories, those that produce sound waves via strings, wind, interception. And those that use electricity as their primary sound producer [electrcitiy, magnatism, what ever]. |
Sounds like you just named four categories there, not two. I'd say five if I had any clue what you meant by "interception". Percussion?
And for the love of god start using a spell checker. I'm used to seeing the occasional typo but you're killing me here. When I go to type up my reply, half of your in the quote section is underlined red.
Anyway, you missed the point. An electronic instrument may use electricity to produce its sound but that sound is still triggered by a mechanical action from the player. |
|
|
| desdel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Sounds like you just named four categories there, not two. I'd say five if I had any clue what you meant by "interception". Percussion?
And for the love of god start using a spell checker. I'm used to seeing the occasional typo but you're killing me here. When I go to type up my reply, half of your in the quote section is underlined red.
Anyway, you missed the point. An electronic instrument may use electricity to produce its sound but that sound is still triggered by a mechanical action from the player. |
If we define an instrument as something used in the process of creating (typically toned) sound, which is surely an accurate assessment of a musical instrument, a synthesizer clearly meets this requirement. Furthermore it is also triggered by a mechanical action from the player, namely that of a mouse clicking MIDI notes into existence or playing on a keyboard. It would also be inaccurate to say that since a synthesizer does not create sound without input from an external source, it is not an instrument: A musician with an electric piano cannot tell the inner workings of the piano what to do without the keys, but it is still a piano. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I think I smell relativism here.
All human communication is based on definitions and semantics. Without those, we would never be able to reach any consensus or even have meaningful conversation.
The term instrument very strongly implies a mechanical device. If you are using a MIDI keyboard to play notes through a VSTi, it makes a lot more sense to say that the keyboard is your instrument - not the VSTi.
You are implying that an instrument ought to be defined based on the sound it makes, but in reality, instruments are more readily associated with the mechanical action required to play one. A drum is an instrument. An electric piano is considered an instrument, because of the keyboard, not because of the synthesizer it uses. An electric guitar is considered an instrument, even when it's not hooked up to an amp and isn't really making any sound. A voice is typically not considered an instrument, even though it's far more versatile sound-wise than most instruments are.
"Virtual instruments" have no tangible mechanism of action; they are just algorithms, code. It's pushing it to claim that a turntable is an instrument, even for true turntablists; I seriously doubt you'll get much support for the notion that z3ta+ is an instrument by any accepted standard. |
The origin of this dialogue took place when you disparaged virtual instruments by opining that they were the equivalent of a car in Grand Theft Auto. I will tell you, having played both Grand Theft Auto and Virtual Instruments, that when you block a street in order to create a traffic bottle-neck, point your virtual weapon at one of the virtual drivers, without firing it so that they become startled and leave their car (don't do it to cops), and keep doing this until you have a number of cars haphazardly abandoned across the width of a one-way street, as you toss a grenade into their center, no virtual instruments explode in the hilariously chaotic chain reaction, thereafter.
Not the same thing, even remotely.
And true - we do rely on semantics, however those semantics have a certain flexibility to them. That flexibility is also promoted by a common understanding. You seem to be making a case to retard that flexibility in order to prove your argument. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by desdel
If we define an instrument as something used in the process of creating (typically toned) sound |
How about looking up the definition instead of speculating over it? Every definition I'm familiar with uses one of the terms "device", "apparatus", or "contrivance". This excludes isolated computer code with no dedicated input or output device.
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Not the same thing, even remotely. |
While your long description of GTA may have elicited a chuckle or two, I'm not seeing the relevance. It was an analogy. Substitute GTA for a plain old racing game if you want - does that help? You can even get yourself one of those USB steering wheel and pedal sets, but it's still not a real car.
I'm not going to respond directly to your Chomskyesque meta-argument about linguistics. Words have specific meanings. People may conjure up different mental images based on the same word, but we all know that a hot dog is some sort of long and skinny piece of organ meat. Likewise, an instrument is some sort of device that produces sound - not a computer program that produces a digitally-encoded waveform that can be turned into sound after at least 3 more stages of output (host, sound card, speakers).
Virtual instruments are not instruments - they are computer jargon, like drivers or threads. These words have absolutely nothing in common with their real-world equivalents except perhaps as a metaphor (and even that is only sometimes). |
|
|
| Subtle |
| A synthesizer is not an instrument, but slap a keyboard on it and it becomes one. Even i understood that. :D |
|
|
| Subtle |
| If u know how to program synths, you know how to alter a preset to your liking! |
|
|
| JmanNZ |
Since posting this thread I have been spending a lot of time going through presets and each time asking myself "does this sound interesting, is it a sound I would like to know how to make?" then I get into the guts of it to see how it was put together. Then, I initialize the synth and try and recreate it, fail, go back to the preset, find what I missed, initialize ... you get it...
I have come across a couple of interesting sounds, sounds that I have been seeking, but never ever would have though to put them together the way they needed to go, so I very much doubt that trial and error would have worked.
I think this method of learning is working, and so far would recommend it to anyone else sharing this difficulty.
Thanks for the helpful comments! |
|
|
| Theran |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
A synthesizer is not an instrument, but slap a keyboard on it and it becomes one. Even i understood that. :D |
And what about synths that have a keyboard? Are they instruments, I think so, hell, I even think a rackversion is a instrument. I always define a instrument by something that creates/makes a sound and is possible to do that in different tonalities, if that's true or not is debatable ofcourse, but it's my little terminology :).. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Chomskyesque |
Wasn't really my point, but, there are already so many flaws in this conversation that trying to make one that's salient is nearly impossible when you've resorted to what I consider to be a very offensive ad-hominem in order to support yours. ;)
In essence, you're right. A joystick with a throttle attachment, connected to the computer, does not make a F-22 Raptor. The application, however, is not designed to fill such a role. Imaginary cars are no substitute for real ones.
My point is that, much like a word-processing program that has replaced the type-writer - albeit with a requisite printer to make full use of its capacity - a (any) virtual instrument has been conceived of in order to suit a more specific need.
The application of a car, in Grand Tourismo, is as much different as it is platform dependent. At their current incarnation, cars from either GTA or GT are not interchangeable. Furthermore, their application is merely that of amusement. They do not satisfy any application that requires a capacity to render data into a .wav form.
I've made arguments for hardware music instruments in which I've declared they'll never be subject to technology market laws which has them at a disadvantage. The bottom line is that there are far too many musicians who make use of Roland Fantoms and Nord Leads. That said, I'm also maintaining that software has its advantages over hardware synths.
In either case, the advantages and disadvantages are derived from how the user applies their instruments, virtual and/or otherwise, in order to shape their sound. It is the way in which such applications are used that defines them as valid. Neither, in the case of myself, is outweighed by either merit or defect. Both generate sound and can be used to form musical phrases. Both are also specific to their applications, for which their sonic qualities are utilized in order to compose and/or perform.
When I can appreciate the utility of both as equal, what use is it to declare one victoriously superior over another? |
|
|
| WhatTF |
Time for the pissing contest.
The definition for an "musical instrument" is:
"any of various devices or contrivances that can be used to produce musical tones or sounds" from http://dictionary.reference.com/bro...al%20instrument
Logically this can broken into the statement:
IF [device OR contrivance] AND [(it can) produce musical sounds OR tones] THEN it is a "musical instrument"
(providing that we agree upon the definitions presented by www.dictionary.com)
So, the question: "Is a VST a musical instrument?"
First- Can a VST produce musical sounds? I think we can reach a mutual consensus that a VST CAN produce musical sounds.
Second- Is a VST a "device" or "contrivance"? The definition for device is: "a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, esp. a mechanical or electrical one." from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/device.
I think that we can also reach a mutual consensus that a VST DOES have a particular purpose.
SO:
We have determined that it is can produce musical sounds and that it is a device. So the left hand side of our logical statement can be evaluated: "[_ v T] & [T v _]", which can be simplified to "T" (or true). So a VST meets the criteria that it is musical instrument. Therefore, provided that we agree with the previous assertions/assumptions, we can agree that a VST is a musical instrument. (By Modus Ponens) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Why anyone would resurrect this is beyond me...
First, a "device" is a physical object. The definition even clearly emphasizes "mechanical or electrical". Of course we all agree that a VST has a purpose, but that's not the point of contention. Fail #1.
Second, a VST does not directly produce musical sounds or tones. I already explained this. It spits out information that the host uses to construct a digital waveform, which at some point gets interpolated into an analog waveform, which eventually hits speakers and gets converted into actual sound.
Hitting a key on a piano causes a hammer to strike strings. This device is actually directly producing sound. An electric guitar or keyboard needs an amp to produce er... "useful" sound, but for a lot of people that's probably close enough. With a VST, there are just so many layers of indirection involved in actually causing the air compression that is sound that it's just not reasonable to say that it is producing the sound by itself. It isn't. Fail #2.
And to Eddie:
| quote: | | When I can appreciate the utility of both as equal, what use is it to declare one victoriously superior over another? |
Is that what this is about? I don't recall declaring either one as superior, or having more or less utility. I merely said that they are not the same.
Software synths clearly do have advantages over hardware synths and pure metal/wood instruments. So what? That's a tangential issue. I would much rather use a word processor than a typewriter, but a word processor is not a typewriter, even if it resembles one on account of being able to respond to a QWERTY keyboard. It is an altogether different beast. |
|
|
|
|
