Namelessness

[anon60283851]

I’d assume a composite cordophone as well!

[juhbuba]

@zbs

describing shifting formants as what they underlyingly are - spectral changes over time - is a much more broadly applicable concept that you could apply to any voice

There’s a great part on Wendy Carlos’s “Synth Secrets” LP where she plays unfiltered square and saw waves and makes the point that the difference is largely irrelevant in a musical context. The discernable quality is the brightness of timbre (e.g. compared to a sine wave).

As someone who gives a lot of attention and care to minor differences in timbre, I was surprised to agree with her point after hearing the examples!

That record is an illuminating listen, as she is speaking from a composer’s perspective (bound though it may be by the Western Classical tradition). And was made without benefit of the cork sniffing afforded by our modern gear smorgasbord.

(Can’t find a link online, but will try to digitize that segment and post later.)

[dailyrituals]

@baleen

I tend to leave patches in place for a while. I find where relationships are happening and let them do their thing.

this is enlightening (among all the other things you mentioned) and nice to hear.

modular, like many other e-music things, are attractive because they can be and do so many things.
but that tends to make me chase that distant horizon - makes me feel that if i’m not continually pushing new patches learning new scripts that i’m doing the medium a disservice.

@baleen

functions are often duplicated: there are two pattern generators, two modulation generators, two voices, two filters, etc.

why do you think two is the magic number for you?
does that have to do with the “conversation” between expression and interpretation?

[baleen]

@dailyrituals

@baleen

functions are often duplicated: there are two pattern generators, two modulation generators, two voices, two filters, etc.

why do you think two is the magic number for you?
does that have to do with the “conversation” between expression and interpretation?

because I don’t have space/budget/interest/motivation for three? but yes I think it is, less practically/more poetically, the conversation between expression and interpretation.

I like to have similar enough ways to do the generation/diffusion (“control” or lack of) part of my instruments that the difference comes out in the expression (“voices” or lack of). this is a tension or friction that I find works for “the music I make.” so if I’m in a duo or a small group, I am working with my instrument(s) to find that with/against my partners. I have almost always viewed my software and modular synths as a small group instead of a solo instrument.

also - an album comes together out of this, not instantly (“that take is it”) but through a process of listening and editing (“interpretation” and “expression” again).

@kilchhofer

this is so true and your serge example is i believe a perfect illustration for the underlying functions in a synth that can be adopted to so many other synths.
while it may seem contraproductive first…this let’s call it “method” would also lead to more “mistakes”. experimentation while a concept is maybe not understood completely can lead to very rewarding results. however if i read “how to patch xy module” and i don’t have it, i don’t necessarily beginn experimenting…

this articulates a generally exciting space I found when transitioning from software to more hardware in the past 10 years, or more recently from one kind of instrument to another, similar but not identical kind of instrument. how to replicate a technique without the means to xerox it. how to get a particular effect in structure or sound, that my ears say is ____, without having the gear in the video or as described in the tutorial. this is also what I mean when I wrote above “missing the mark in the best way.”

[JES]

@juhbuba

Can’t find a link online, but will try to digitize that segment and post later.)

I’d love to hear that whole record.

I’m enjoying this thread a lot. I don’t mind naming my instruments but try and not get into brands offline unless someone really wants to know. Online I participate in more gear talk because it’s easy.

@Martebar

You don’t need to read Stratocaster when learning about bends and hammer-ons or Stingray when learning slap.

Precisely. There was a discussion on Roger Linn’s forum about how to explain the Linnstrument to non musicians (or even many musicians, really). I said I don’t bother because most people don’t care. I just say I play the synthesizer.

[zbs]

i think that guitar is an interesting one here - it’s such an old, iconic, often-cloned design that it’s sort of an offshoot instrument in itself. i can think of some other guitars that fit that description too. I’m not going to name them, so use your imagination !

i wonder when designs like that become their own instrument? is it even helpful to think of them like that, or should they remain nameless?

[juhbuba]

@zbs

i think that guitar is an interesting one here - it’s such an old, iconic, often-cloned design that it’s sort of an offshoot instrument in itself. i can think of some other guitars that fit that description too.

I think this makes sense if the design in question covers a distinct timbre and dynamic range. Kinda like trombone and bass trombone. Then again, you also have valve trombone (and serpentine, for that matter, but I digress).

Speaking of trombones: https://youtu.be/Fku2_7Ue0fQ

Or, if you prefer: https://youtu.be/-sgNOCLuGjE

Years back, I attended one of Marc Ribot’s improvisation workshops. When he saw the very simple and generic electric guitar I had, he recognized it immediately, despite the electrical tape covering the headstock.

He shared about visiting a museum exhibition on that class of instrument. The gallery was filled with rare, highly figured, hand-carved archtops. Yet he was exasperated they’d omitted this highly practical and adaptable electric, given its ubiquity, influence, and use.

In his estimation it was “on 90% of studio recordings with guitar.”

---

To the matter at hand, I think I diagnosed why my hackles go up at discussion about [insert fave brand here] modules.

That Serge manual focuses on accessibility as well as learning. And to my understanding, the entire project was pretty radically aligned with those values. Playing around without comprehending is well and good, but without any apparent interest in learning what’s going on, I find it troubling. Especially when you don’t have to dig very deep to do so.

I see it as a missed opportunity, considering the rich history and culture of music that can be traced through the ideas embedded in the gear.

Curiosity > $$$

[watercolor]

Fantastic thread—thanks, @zbs

It seems that there’s a whole mindset behind this concept that drives the words people use and the way they talk about things. Music production will always be defined by gear usage to an extent, but the majority of discussions I see act as if gear and music are the same things. Then there’s the whole GAS enabling thing.

I pointed this out in another thread, but if we really want to change things, we need to question some assumptions. Why do we talk about gear so much? Why is it difficult to talk about creativity? Why are the discussions often so siloed and limited? Getting to the roots of these questions may uncover some interesting underlying factors.

[juhbuba]

@watercolor

Why is it difficult to talk about creativity?

Because things are difficult without practice? Chicken or egg, your choice.

[watercolor]

That’s fair. It’s ironic because it should be fairly intuitive (since creativity is intuitive, at least to a degree). I developed a mantra of “process not product” and I think something similar needs to happen here—the focus needs to shift. Maybe that’s the stumbling block: that people just haven’t been shown the possibilities.

[anon60283851]

I think for me… at the risk of sounding weird, talking about gear is mundane and easy, talking about creativity is like talking about sex. There’s just so much ground that’s private, vulnerable and somewhat mystical, that it doesn’t always feel easy or comfortable to go there with people you aren’t super familiar with. (You can probably tell I’m almost middle age and quite square by now)

Sort of, I like shooting breeze about new and shiny gear, technical process / DIY design things / what-have-you - but I’d prefer to keep creativity and intuition somehow magical in my life, and something I practise instead of talking about it.

[juhbuba]

@anon60283851

talking about creativity is like talking about sex

I respect your stance re: preserving mystery and even privacy, but without getting too far off topic, I think it’s beneficial to talk openly about both.

[watercolor]

I think it’s telling that the comments talking about how talking about creativity is hard are getting more “likes” than the comments promoting talking about it.

There’s this idea that thoughts are somehow mystical or “beyond,” and people who embrace this perspective feel like putting thoughts into language is sacrilege. The truth is that creativity isn’t magical, and it shouldn’t be only spoken about in hushed tones. We can all benefit from breaking down why we create what we do and sharing those discoveries with others.

[nonverbalpoetry]

Creativity is fundamentally magical, but I wholeheartedly aggree that it shouldn’t be talked about in hushed tones. The act of sharing and inspiring others is also deeply magical.

Edit because I’ve been thinking about this some more. While I do think the act of sharing process is a profound thing, maybe that’s why it’s not very present on online communities. Its a type of conversation much better had in person, in dialog. It is magic, and magic doesn’t transmit well in the cold digital realm. It is perhaps the nature of text based public posting that is not conducive to deep and insightful discussion of process.
Online I am much more likely to say ‘have you seen this new thing’, in person, I am more likely to say ‘what made you choose this timbre?’.

[juhbuba]

@watercolor

We can all benefit from breaking down why we create what we do and sharing those discoveries with others.

Kinda wanna create a “Why do you modular?” thread that has to do with peoples’ motivations and imaginations. It should go without saying gear talk and acknowledgment of its very existence would be strictly verboten.

Unless it’s something Einstürzende Neubauten uses.

[renegog]

not to discourage you from creating a new thread, but there are a few threads around here that talk about process and motivations without the focus being on gear (but it hasn’t been put into words like this that i’ve seen, thanks @zbs! )

in the spirit of talking magic and electronic music, i’d recommend this one: Modular Occultism

[secretstates]

These discussions are what draws me to Lines. I’ve become wholly sick of synthfluencers, YT pedal salespeople and Insta shills. The notion that XYZ Product is needed to create art of any merit.

I’m always happy to discuss process but agree that I probably prefer to do this F2F. Maybe it’s a judgement thing, maybe it’s the semi-permanency of the internet? It’s certainly easier to display a line of expensive gear, surrounded by succulents than explain why/how you create.

This thread has been a breath of fresh air though, thanks @zbs!

[juhbuba]

@renegog

not to discourage you from creating a new thread, but there are a few threads around here that talk about process and motivations without the focus being on gear

I figured as much, but couldn’t resist the joke potential in that post. Mea culpa!

[JES]

There are some other great threads under “process” and it’s my favourite tag on Lines. I wish they were more prolific, but I’ve learned a lot from them.

[Jonny]

I think this conversation is a really interesting way of shifting your perception, especially if you consider how the process would go before the current age of ‘knowing everything’. You’d spend much more time listening to sounds you wanted to emulate and imagine how they were made.

A few years ago I learned that a friend (with no experience on a modular that I know of) had created the ‘bouncing ball’ patch sound on you often hear from a dual function generator, BUT they did it completely on the DAW timeline by hand.