Wiardgroup

RM wrote:

>Art is the transformation of the unknown by way of process and 
spirit.<

To me it is an interpretation of nature or experience.

>Sometimes accidents produce some elegant and not so elegant results.<

The not-so-elegant ones we call "mistakes."

>To keep it in the Arena of Painting, how would you classify Picasso?
A genius or a charlatan?<

Both!  His early work was masterful, but once he made a name, he 
figured out that people were willing to pay for his signature and, 
consequently, his art no longer needed to be meritorious.  Why slave 
for weeks or months over a painting when "Picasso" is all people 
really want to see?  I have seen Picasso drawings and "sculptures" of 
such childish ineptitude that without a name or provenance attached 
to them, you literally could not give them away.  This was also true 
of Dali, a painter of consummate skill in his early years, who later 
learned that a signature was all that was required from a modern 
audience willing to call anything "art."  Indeed, Dali became so 
lackadaisical about his work that he had other people create it.  And 
it didn't stop there:  "Dalis" are still being created after his 
death, thanks to a rubber stamp he made of his signature! 

But don't get me started about painting.  If you think I can spout 
off about synths, you ain't heard nothin' yet!

>>There is no real way to evaluate the sound of a 
blarkus or a blork, but if you set out to create French horn and it 
doesn't sound like it, then the faults will be immediately obvious.<<

>Yes, i agree with you here as well, but you are about talking 
imitating or modelling the sound of the French Horn. The French Horn 
existed before the Modular Synthesizer. How about creating new voices.
A most difficult task indeed.<

Not really.  I could create a "new voice" in 60 seconds and I'll bet 
you could too.  New sounds are as common as glass.  The trick is in 
creating appropriate ones.  I agree with you, however, that synthesis 
shouldn't be about imitation.  Even Carlos said there was no point in 
trying to synthesize a violin--just get a real one, for cryin' out 
loud!  Better to try for a "string-like sonority."

>The only experience I have had with the Wiard, was an original 6 
module system from one of the first ones out of the gate. I tried it 
over at a friend's place first. My friend lent me the manuals so i 
could come to grips with it's format. Afterward, he brought it over 
to my place for a few days.<

Who is this friend?  I want to get to know him.  :-)

>It very hard to describe, i would 
say, lock yourself in a room with the system, experiment and listen.<

It would be much cheaper to lock myself in a room with somebody 
else's system.  :-)

> I sometimes wonder, how these 
instruments would affected the likes of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven .etc 
with regards to compostion and intregation in an orchetral setting. 
Alas, we shall never know.<

That is why I am here to tell you.

Mozart would not have had the patience for analog synthesis.

Beethoven would not have been able to hear what he was doing, alas, 
and so creating new sounds would have been out of the question.

Bach would have been the most comfortable, given that the organ is 
the granddaddy of synthesizers.

>Switched on Bach was such a powerful performance, that the amount of 
copies sold at the time, dictated the commercial rush that ensued. 
Shameful for sure, although, there were some pleasnt surprises.<

Hans Wurman in particular.  But that's a discussion for another forum.

>People change with the passage of time. ;-)<

Indeed.  Ten years from now I could have a wall o' Wiard.  Stranger 
things have happened.

BTW, many of your points went unaddressed because I feel we are 
pretty much on the same page.  Now, what's the address of that friend 
who is so liberal with lending his Wiard?  :-)

johnm