|
presets don't cut it, time to programme, help! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sonic_c |
| im all for intellectual debate but when it comes down to it if something a vst, a keyboard, a stick and washboard ffs makes a nice sound that then can be organised over time then im afraid it is music, furthermore it is generally acepted that people use instruments to make music. Why is it such a big deal? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| For someone who's all for intellectual debate, you don't make a very intellectual argument. Did you even read any of the previous posts or did you just skim 3 words and immediately feel the need to chime in with your... whatever? |
|
|
| Sonic_c |
| I have been following the thread! It seems people are in a a tissy over this when its really not necessary. It cant be so important to define a vst it makes a pitched sound right? Its intended for musical use right? it can be manipulated in a similar way to an instrument right? so rather than stress yourself out over whether or not I have had too many beers to properly argue my point why not just chill. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
There's a million miles of in this world, but you'll only see this much of it:
<---------|---------|----> ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Sonic_c
Seriously neither of you has a bigger happy? |
No! Diginut's fun to debate with and WhatTF's a challenging contender as well.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Why anyone would resurrect this is beyond me...
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. |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Sure - as in Virtual Instrument. Calling a synth an instrument on that basis would be like calling a GTA car a form of transportation. |
I'll admit to sniping at you earlier in this thread, but the above is the thesis which really got the ball rolling, so far as this discussion is concerned.
Your original argument was that a virtual instrument < an actual instrument as a car, in GTA < a real car. I had an opinion which differed from that and made a case as to why I thought yours was an invalid metaphor. Now there's no use in telling me that's not the discussion we were having. When such a comparison is less than flattering to a VST's utility as the concept of the utility is reduced to that of a virtual object created for entertainment purposes, my argument was, generally speaking, that they were two entirely different beasts with the virtual instrument having a significant amount of utility than was ordained to it in the grace of your faulty comparison. |
|
|
| WhatTF |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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.
|
Time to take a leak.
First, the definition does not state that it is has to be a physical object, you implied that meaning. It states "especially mechanical or electrical" not that it is all inclusive. Also, Isn't a VST manipulating an electric signal? Also, check the second definition: "a plan or scheme for effecting a purpose." This definitely does not have a physical implication. I would also contend that the second definition is met.
Second, once again let us look at the definition, more specifically the second part: "that can be used to produce tones or musical tones". According to the definition the thing itself does not need to be creating the sounds. If it were I would contend that it would be phrased: "that produces tones or musical tones."
At the same token your second and main point basically boils down to (correct me if I am misinterpreting you) that the musical instrument must be in itself able to create sounds, with no other things/actions required. In other words, that it is self contained. This is fairly interesting point. You mentioned earlier that a drum is a musical instrument. Is it self contained? I would say no, it still requires human or some type of force acted upon it to create a musical sound. Not to mention air to create the vibrations that are audible. So in that case, does the drum cease to be a musical instrument when it is brought into outer space? Also does it cease to be a musical instrument if no one is playing it? I would say no. I see an unplayed drum and classify it as a "musical instrument". Simply because its main function is to be "musical." I would also assert that a VST's main function is to be "musical."
Possibly we would have to attribute the musical instrument to being a part of a musical process. Or possibly, that a musical instrument will need certain criteria to be met for it to display its "musical" properties. In the case of VST it would be that it has a computer, speakers, and a human interfacing with the VST for it to display its musical properties. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Your original argument was that a virtual instrument < an actual instrument as a car, in GTA < a real car. |
You inferred that - and I will grant you that it was a perfectly reasonable inference - but it was not what I meant. I merely used the GTA car as an analogy to demonstrate that a "virtual x" does not necessarily fall under the definition of "x". Any other characteristics of a GTA car that make it "less [something (useful? dangerous? radical?)]" than a real car are purely coincidental.
If your argument is in fact that they are two entirely different beasts, then it is pretty well-aligned with my own. I hope we understand each other now. ;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhatTF
First, the definition does not state that it is has to be a physical object, you implied that meaning. |
I assume you mean inferred, and your own interpretation of the definition is wholly illogical. The definition does not state the words "physical object" because to do so would add further ambiguity (what is physical? What is an object?). The phrase "esp. mechanical or electrical" is a much better statement of the definition's intent.
Your definition of "device" is basically, "thing". You referred to it as "thing with a purpose", but everything could be said to have some purpose, so the additional verbiage at the end is redundant. By your definition, toothpaste is a device. Orange juice is a device. Pants are a device. They lyrics to "Old McDonald" are a device (and not of the literary kind). The deuce I dropped four hours ago is... a device. Clearly this definition is a little too broad.
| quote: | | I would also contend that the second definition is met. |
Arguably, yes, but that is clearly not the definition implied by "instrument". If any definition of the word were acceptable, you could use #7 ("a motto") to argue that the words to an advertising jingle are a musical instrument when sung. This is not how formal languages work.
| quote: | | Second, once again let us look at the definition, more specifically the second part: "that can be used to produce tones or musical tones". According to the definition the thing itself does not need to be creating the sounds. If it were I would contend that it would be phrased: "that produces tones or musical tones." |
A VST "can be used to produce [...]" in the same way that a remote control can be used to produce picture on a TV screen, or that a kitchen knife can be used to produce a hospital bill. They play an entirely incidental role in the production. Again, this is clearly not what's implied by the words "can be used". "Can be used to produce tones" means "produces tones on demand, as opposed to constantly or randomly."
And once again, using your definition, literally anything could be defined as a musical instrument, because you can bang it against something that vibrates in order to produce a tone. By your definition, every individual hammer in a piano is an instrument. What the definition is trying to convey, and which I think almost everybody who isn't intentionally quibbling over the meaning understands, is that the "instrument" is the assemblage of parts that enables an operator to create "tones or musical notes" without the use of additional equipment or actions.
| quote: | | You mentioned earlier that a drum is a musical instrument. Is it self contained? I would say no, it still requires human or some type of force acted upon it to create a musical sound. |
Every device requires some external action to operate (basic conservation of energy here). The drum nevertheless has its own direct mechanism for producing sound waves.
| quote: | | Not to mention air to create the vibrations that are audible. |
Now I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling. This is just plumb stupid; I'm not even going to bother expanding on this one.
| quote: | | Possibly we would have to attribute the musical instrument to being a part of a musical process. Or possibly, that a musical instrument will need certain criteria to be met for it to display its "musical" properties. In the case of VST it would be that it has a computer, speakers, and a human interfacing with the VST for it to display its musical properties. |
Indeed, a VST fits this definition. Unfortunately, it's a definition that you just made up right now. |
|
|
| Subtle |
LOL its me who actually started this discussion.
Digi, your GTA Car analogy is not a good one, since it doesnt produce the same results (transportation)
But a synthesizer is considered an instrument right ? (a physical one) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
And just to further beat this dead horse, let's think about this from a system perspective; that is, what is a "musical instrument" in terms of its input and output?
Most people, assuming they have some semblance of sanity, understand it to work like so:
[Human] -> [Instrument] -> [Sound]
In some cases we've stretched the definition a bit, as I mentioned before, like electric guitars or keyboards. In that case it's:
[Human] -> [Instrument] -> [Amp] -> [Sound]
But an amp is just amplifying a sound that already exists. There really is a sound wave, it's just too weak for anyone to actually hear without the amp. So technically you can ignore the amp; the analogy still holds.
How a VST works is:
[Human] -> [Input Device] -> [Data Port] -> [Comm Hardware] -> [Comm Driver] -> [Sequencer or Host] -> [Plugin (VST)] -> [Sequencer or Host] -> [Audio Driver] -> [Audio Device] -> [Monitor] -> [Sound]
The VST is sandwiched way in the middle of something much more complicated. There is no direct link to either the human or to the sound. There's not even a 2nd- or 3rd-degree indirect link, and I'm simplifying this process by remove things like the operating system and the multiple stages of hardware that signals actually have to go through, trying to highlight only the identifiable, discrete stages.
Okay, so the I/O is not actually a definition, but it's a critical characteristic of a musical instrument. Every single musical instrument known to man acts like that first system. If you take away the stuff around the VST - the sequencer, the audio device, hell, the whole computer - can it still be used to produce music? Can you substitute those surrounding elements for something else? No, and no.
VSTs are not musical instruments. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
VSTs are not musical instruments. |
GAH!:whip:
By your elaborate illustration they would be classified as an Integrated Musical Instrument, since they are an integrated part of a larger whole which is used to produce music.
:D |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Digi, your GTA Car analogy is not a good one, since it doesnt produce the same results (transportation) |
Arguably, VSTs don't produce the same results as traditional musical instruments either. They don't produce sound, or sound waves. They produce bits - information.
But that wasn't the point of the analogy. There's no sense in poking holes in an analogy when the holes have nothing to do with the relationship that the analogy was trying to illustrate. If I write "a track without a kick is like a peanut butter sandwich without jam", it's pretty damn obvious what I mean: I don't really enjoy the first thing without the second thing. It really does not matter that you can't eat a track, or that you can't hear a sandwich. Ya dig? |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| Damn this is one deep argument :crazy: |
|
|
|
|
