From: metlay@netcom.com (metlay)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Synth timbres alone (was Re: I don't think any of us are belittling)
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:52:41 GMT
Organization: Atomic City

In article <1501@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.183313.20336@netcom.com> metlay@netcom.com (metlay) writes:
>>Anthony Phillips can sit down at the Polymoog and just
>>play it, producing utterly wonderful stuff.
>
>The same patch?

Yes, the same patch. If it wasn't the same patch, I'd be arguing YOUR side
of the argument, not mine. |-> 

>I'm not saying that patches can't or shouldn't be reused.  I'm saying
>that the synth player should be vigilant about the musical reality
>of what he is doing and have high standards.  I'm frequently
>guilty of violating this myself.  It's all too easy to think that
>that latest sound is way cool or that the usual string patch will suffice
>here.

I think we're getting far afield from the original point of contention,
here. I agree with this statement. What I disagree with is that a single,
well-crafted, well-understood, well-played patch on a good synthesizer
in the hands of an accomplished player can be as enjoyable to listen
to for a long time as a piano being played by a good pianist. It may be
a much rarer occurrence, to be sure, but I don't think that it's impossible
a priori. I take issue only with the statement that the synthesizer's
only virtue is its amorphous sound capabilities, and that any individual
sound must be unable to stand on its own without a zillion other sounds
to support it.

>A traditional acoustic orchestra goes way beyond 128 patches.  Sure,
>every sound palette has a finite usefulness.  I just feel that many
>synthesists are trying to take shortcuts which tends to make them
>overrate the sounds they use.  GMIDI can't succeed unless enough
>people out there think "These patches are *great*.  I won't be
>needing anything else".  Working within limitations is an important
>part of any art form from a black-and-white movie to a mime show.  It's 
>also important that the artist be aware of the limitations - especially
>self-imposed ones.

I agree. I'd be a lot more impressed by a beautiful, arresting, exciting
piece of music created on a single instrument playing a single patch than
I would by a GMIDI arrangement of a standard pop tune. All I'm saying is
that the former is NOT impossible due to the very nature of synthesizers.
Where would we be if the piano were cast aside as an obnoxious toy that
could never compete with those Princes of the keyboard world, the organ
and the harpsichord? It is an identical situation-- the synthesizer is
in its infancy, and we won't be able to legitimately draw the sorts of
comparisons you're asking for until the synth and the piano have coexisted
for at least one generation. (If then; synths are so plastic in form that
we may never see a standardization of their abilities in any meaningful way.)

-- 
metlay            | and she's a master of return hitting          
atomic city       | giving rhythm to her posts
                  | so you read her and think hey it sounds good
metlay@netcom.com | and wish her posts had a soundtrack too    (f. ercolessi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.music