What do you think about the future of music technology?
I am surprised how for the most part we don't see many new electronic instruments getting created or used. I mean, for the most part, electronic music has kind of retreated into the computer where everything is programmed. I wonder how it could be made more like traditional music allowing for better integration with the body. When you see someone play say, a guitar, they are doing a kind of dance and responding to other people usually in real time. I feel like that is mostly missing in electronic groups where even the best artists like Autechre will admit that what they do live is essentially an advanced find of DJing, which is fine, but I feel like we could use more people like Oynx Ashanti who improvise more fluidly, here's a video of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bJsxIeg5iQ
Also, pic related is and Eigenharp, shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBzVTmaGOl4
What do you think or know about evolving music technology?
If you were to design an instrument, what would it be like?
>>49145616
>I wonder how it could be made more like traditional music allowing for better integration with the body. When you see someone play say, a guitar, they are doing a kind of dance and responding to other people usually in real time. I feel like that is mostly missing in electronic groups
Thats purely an image thing. Has no effect on the music.
Allen Linn's Linnstrument seems like it could be a cool breakthrough in controllers.
>>49145652
>Has no effect on the music.
Haha come on dude
they are all pretty much gonna be variations of launch pads
board with buttons to press and each button is linked to an instrument, sample or effect
>>49145818
>Haha come on dude
Very vague. Elucidate.
Imogene Heap invented this weird suit that you wear while performing. Your movements dictate pitch and modulation of samples. I'd post a video, but I'm on my phone. Pretty neat stuff imo. Better than some asshole standing behind a laptop and pressing play.
>>49145652
>Has no effect on the music.
yes it does. If musicians are improvising together in real time the responses of their body have an enormous effect on the sound they produce.
>>49146032
>Better than some asshole standing behind a laptop and pressing play.
>>49145616
>When you see someone play say, a guitar, they are doing a kind of dance and responding to other people usually in real time.
So you're guys are just concerned with the visual aspect, not the music. Right? Would a kick ass laser light show placate you?
>>49146032
Imogen**
What an odd word to autocorrect to.
>>49145652
Not true in the slightest. If you've ever played an instrument, you would know this.
Guitars have so many dynamics it's not even funny, all of which can be changed incredibly quickly. The problem with electronic music is that there aren't as many variables that can be changed immediately. Infinite possibilities, but changing them on the fly and keeping it cohesive is nigh impossible, therefore electronic musicians don't experiment too much with them live; mostly because the tools don't allow for it.
>>49146072
>If musicians are improvising together in real time the responses of their body have an enormous effect on the sound they produce.
How so?
And why cant this (whatever it is you're talking about, i'm still not sure) be achieved with say a laptop?
Your body doesn't disappear when you turn on a computer.
>>49146101
For live performances, yes. I don't mind just sitting down and listening to bleeps and bloops on my headphones. But if I were paying money to see a SHOW then I'd expect them to SHOW me something in return. I just mentioned Imogen because she's actually being innovative in music performance, which is partly what I thought this thread was about.
>>49146125
>Not true in the slightest. If you've ever played an instrument, you would know this.
Here's my music, featuring, you guessed it, guitar!
https://soundcloud.com/motherskunk/four-lucky-fingers
It's sad how these threads devolve into people saying: "You aren't a real musician", "Nuh-uh, yeah I am", "electronic music sucks", "traditional music sucks". Christ it's about innovations in music technology, not a pissing contest.
>>49146145
Dynamics are less fluid when you are working with a computer. Current tech only really allows for velocity sensitivity. Portremelo, vibrato, and pitch bending effects happen very regularly on electronic instruments. If you are talking about just a computer the only tools you have a gated controls.
Eh. Various artists have tried various things over the years, but they always come across as gimmicky - as in, one of the main draws to the music is supposed to be the stupid technology itself.
Until people start hiding their new, weird shit behind the music itself, none of it will ever catch on. Art first, method second.
>>49146101
>Would a kick ass laser light show placate you?
Does it help? Certainly. Look at any Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails show and tell me that it doesn't add to the show.
Has it ever saved a show? Not in the slightest.
>>49146101
The key is "responding to other people usually in real time" which I assume means improvising and playing off what other band members are doing. That's not really a thing with programmed music. Most everything is firmly bolted into place.
Plus there's something to be said about actually being able to play in time with other people
>>49146125
>The problem with electronic music is that there aren't as many variables that can be changed immediately. Infinite possibilities, but changing them on the fly and keeping it cohesive is nigh impossible
What you say is true, if we're talking about some guy on his own, producing a whole track from his computer.
If you're playing with a group of people, improvising , you're likely to be only focusing on one thing, perhaps you'll be playing one synthline or something, in which case you would be able to control the dynamics and explore the sound like you would a guitar., provided you know your equipment well enough.
>>49146101
the visual aspect isn't the important part. it is this basically >>49146125
Playing an instrument is fundamentally different than programming a composition or DJing.
>>49146145
I don't know the best way to explain this. It is kind of like the difference between hitting a bassball in a video game and hitting one in real life.
or this lol>>49146241
It is the difference between typing in a chat box or speaking to someone on the phone.
It's like being about to speak a language, say Japansese, fluidly, in real time, as opposed to sitting with a dictionary and recording your self saying the words in order.
>>49146206
>those hihats
>>49146145
You don't play off of other musicians the same way behind a screen. It's just not the same, it's a completely different beast. There's something far more raw and real about actual physical instruments.
>>49146464
all the drums, man. Squelchy as shit.
disgusting
>>49146362
>If you're playing with a group of people, improvising , you're likely to be only focusing on one thing, perhaps you'll be playing one synthline or something, in which case you would be able to control the dynamics and explore the sound like you would a guitar., provided you know your equipment well enough.
OP here, I do realize this, so I guess the real question is how and will or can instruments be designed to allow you to play multiple things, a whole improvised song, with the same amount of control. Can a person even mentally do that?
Sort of like this Pat Metheney project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VymAn8QJNQ
but smaller and more cyber
I think it needs to be noted that these kinds of instruments would better allow for electronic bands of sorts, as well. It could change pretty much everything.
>>49146500
>You don't play off of other musicians the same way behind a screen. It's just not the same, it's a completely different beast. There's something far more raw and real about actual physical instruments.
I guess i'll just have to disagree. I honestly feel no different when im playing a guitar to when i'm using my laptop. It all feels the same to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're obviously talking from your own experience. But in my experience, there isnt much of a difference. The physical process never really had an effect on me. I always think about music in my head before anything else.
>far more raw and real
This doesn't really mean anything
>>49146464
Sorry about those hi hats i regret the fuck outta them
>>49146634
I don't know, man, maybe it's more a matter of levels of comfortableness with an instrument than anything else. However, I'm a brass player, and I can just play a lick with my instrument. When using a DAW, it feels like there are too many steps. You have to put more work into everything.
I could be wrong but didn't we pretty much reach the height of music technology with the Guitorgan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oPOBrwR2I8#t=97
>>49146279
Agreed. But then again, we're still exploring the possibilities. Look at electric guitars. When they were first developed, people didn't really know how to incorporate them. Over time, as the general public became more accepting of the sound, various effects were added. It took time, but those sounds too became accepted.
One of the major problems with electronic music is that there is an unlimited number of sounds that can be developed. UNLIMITED. No restrictions. As artists are scrambling to develop their own sound, their specific sounds aren't being heard as often, so the general public isn't being exposed to it enough for it to be accepted. This makes any electronic sound that isn't widely heard as being perceived as gimmicky.
It could be argued that guitars have unlimited sounds as well, but generally they have the same type of sound, just a shit ton of subtle nuances. Trying to develop an electronic instrument that can all the possible dynamics imaginable in a way that is easy to control is nearly impossible. How can you have an answer for a problem that has infinite questions?
What's exciting is that electronic music is more popular now that it has been ever before. And it's being fused with more and more genres of music, much of which utilizes traditional instruments. There's no doubt in my mind instruments that dynamically control electronic sounds will be developed and utilized more and more. It's just a matter of when the general public will accept the sounds that come from them.
>>49146032
I'm fairly sure Silver Apples created a more primitive version of that in the 60s.
Op that's why I can't feel anything when I listen to electronic music, more energy at a rock show
>>49146763
has science gone too far?
>>49146720
As a former trumpet player, DAWs are a hundred times more convenient. Nobody wants to listen to a solo trumpet player aside from students of the instrument. I'd rather be proficient in piano so that I could zip around in a DAW and make entire compositions rather than a few neat licks.
>>49146634
you don't play improvised music on an advanced level though. You would feel a difference then.
>>49146908
>Nobody wants to listen to a solo trumpet player aside from students of the instrument
>>49146814
>Trying to develop an electronic instrument that can all the possible dynamics imaginable in a way that is easy to control is nearly impossible
that is the goal but I don't think it is impossible. All sound have the same properties. Velocity, waveform and amplitude.
then you just add acoustic variables like reverberation
>>49146908
yeah, but plenty of people would like to hear you improvise with other musicians in real time.
Why do people pay to watch a guy press buttons on his laptop
>>49147143
Why do people pay to watch a guy hold down strings against wood?
oh wait they don't, they go for the music
>>49147143
because I don't have a sound system at home large enough to produce 50 or 100 foot bass waves and also because drugs.
>>49147140
Sure they would. But you can make (arguably more complicated and interesting) music live with drumpads, pedals and keyboards.
>>49146923
i'll take your word for it i guess
you seem pretty confident
>>49147178
It's mostly drugs right?
With digital instruments its unclear to the spectator how much skill is involved whilst everybody can attest that playing an analogue instrument is hard and deserves admiration.
>>49147306
nah i can usually tell if someone is just dicking around with a kaos pad and making a meal out of muting a few channels
>>49147306
True, but the thing is music should never be treated like a sport.
>>49147396
performance = sport
stop putting art on a pedestal
>>49147437
Sport=competition
Shouldnt you be watching the x factor ?
>>49147396
THIS
It's about the final sound being enjoyable
>>49147437
This, how can the only excuse to pay for a electronic show is a better sound system
>>49147473
This is the message im getting:
You either only go to concerts by virtuoso musicians, or you only go to concerts for the visual aspect of seeing someone play guitar, which is as stupid as going to see someone with a laptop.
>>49147459
Nothing wrong with a little competition unless of course you're completely incompetent.
>>49147437
>stop putting art on a pedestal
Philistine.
>>49147516
There's a difference playing music on an instrument in real time, some guy playing mp3s through a sound system isn't exciting to me, sorry :/
>>49145616
I don't see why that excludes electronic music. There's plenty of electronic artists who play through an entire song on a keyboard live, which gives them just as much live freedom and control as a guitar player.
>>49147163
Not entirely true. A lot of my enjoyment comes from seeing their technique being utilized in ways that I can see.
I saw Jel play a few years ago back before I was familiar with him. He's an electronic musician, but damn, watching him punch away on his pads live was fucking amazing. Most electronic musicians miss this aspect. If I just wanted to hear the music, I'd listen to the album, but I don't; I wanna see it too.
>>49147437
Saying what music isnt is not putting it on a pedestal
>>49147473
Theres the whole communal thing too. Gigs are way morefun than being alone in your bedroom, for most people at least.
>>49147163
>>49147624 here. This is what I'm referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9aAKr58svc
>>49147621
Pretty sure OP is mostly talking about programmed stuff done on a computer
>>49147178
Hahahaha. I'd say this is a compelling argument, but if given the opportunity for the exact same experience (environment, speakers, drugs, crowd, etc.) but with the music being played by a DJ, would you enjoy it to the same level?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinkFO0ECpQ
>>49147306
that is completely irrelevant. Most nonmusicians can't tell how much skill is involved in traditional instrument performance too. And a producer will hear when an electronic song being performed is good or bad.
The issue isn't the skill anyway, it is the fluidity of performance arising from integration of the sound with the body that is missing in electronic music often. It is about putting the dance back in EDM.
>>49147437
that's retarded though cause I would rather go see poor performers play good music than good performers play shit music.
I think electronic instruments, including sequencers, create a way of playing and making music all their own. A good example is ticktick, who played with the industrial-gabber-punk band Realicide for a time. That kid has fingers that vibrate like crazy. He was playing samples live on an ES-1 while also writing/editing sequences on the fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqnrFEYBERU
