--- In wiardgroup@y..., "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> RM:
>
> Can't say I agree with most of your post, but it sure was good
> reading!
Thanks.
>
> >You have to appreciate the costs
> associated with producing face plates. By having the same face
plate
> throughout the system, he, thereby, eliminates the issue of having
to
> design faceplates for different modules. The bonus is that he only
> has to carry one faceplate in his inventory.<
>
> But this is like the cart driving the horse. "Well, we have these
> uniform panels with the same number of holes in them, so we had
> better fill them with functions whether they are called for or
not."
> It's kind of like designing different cars, from Volkswagens to
> Audis, and using the same body for all of them. Form should follow
> function.
A Wiard module has a core function to begin with, the other functions
are there to complement the core. So, the complimentary functions are
there to follow the form set by the core function.
>
> >Does this limit the look and functionality of the modules? Some
> would
> say, Yes. I believe, it actually helps the module. If you look at
> Digest #618,<
>
> I shall have to read that. Thank you for the pointer.
>
> >Wiard has more functions on their modules,
> thereby, eliminating the need for long patchcords to go across the
> surface of the instrument.<
>
> But it also locks you into the "macro-module" concept a la Serge.
> You may end up with functions you don't want or need. To me, this
is
> not the way to create an efficient system.
You may not want or need them, but they are complimentary to the Core
Function of the module and not whimsical. It always helps to have one
or more Complimentary Functions on board. If you balance your Core
Function modules in an array that pleases your patching needs, then
the Complimentary Functions will help balance the rest of the system.
If you feel the need to have a particular function which the Wiard
does not have, you could always expand it with modules from other
manufacturers.
>
> >About the issue of " (An aside: How come nobody with a Wiard does
> classical?)" , Classical Music is not the barometer to define
whether
> or not an instrument is viable or valuable.<
>
> Ah, but it is! It is probably the best metric for evaluating a
> modular synthesizer.
I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but i come from a different
school of thought on the subject. Not to go into philosophical
semantics about Art, but from where i base my ideas on Art and
Creativity, there are certain patterns that I tend to avoid.
Art is the transformation of the unknown by way of process and spirit.
Sometimes accidents produce some elegant and not so elegant results.
It's like an analogy I recently used on TGS
> about painting. Anybody--even a monkey--can create abstract art.
> There is no skill involved in throwing caviar at a canvas and
calling
> it "art." It is quite another matter, however, to paint like
Tissot
> or Ingres. It takes a great deal of talent, skill and time to
create
> a painting of a person that looks like a person, and any defects in
> such a painting will be immediately apparent to all eyes, trained
or
> untrained, because we all know what a person is supposed to look
like.
To keep it in the Arena of Painting, how would you classify Picasso?
A genius or a charlatan? Having seen 3 of his exhibitons and seeing
his early and later sketchbooks, most people think of Picasso as an
Abstract artist. Classical Art aficionados tend to think less of his
work. During his formative years, he had the ability to draw and
paint like his Classical predecessors, his teachers saw his ability
as well. The one comment he opined to a friend about that period of
his life, was generally speaking along these lines, < They know, I
can paint like them if I want to, but they will never be able to
paint like me >. This where Art enters into the equation. He had the
soul and prowess, to transform his ideas and surroundings to their
most primal forms, into works of Art. If you have the chance to see
the 1956 documentary THE MYSTERY OF PICASSO by Henri-Georges Clouzot,
i highly recommend it.
>
> The same is true for sound. Any eight-year-old can get sound out
of
> a synthesizer. 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.
>
> Now, say you wanted to evaluate the sound of a new grand piano on
the
> market. From which could you discern more: sequences of random
> banging, or a Chopin etude? The former has no frame of reference,
> the latter does.
Again, I agree, but how about a Cecil Taylor composition or a
Rachmaninov concerto to put it through its paces. Atonal and
Discordant music has its place on a piano as well.
>
> How well do Wiard oscillators track? How good are the filters for
> creating formants? These kind of criteria cannot be ascertained
from
> random squawks and banal, numbingly repetitive sequencer riffs.
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. I put it through its' paces and found it
tracked very well. I didn't try to track the filter, but i did find
the filter very responsive. The Omni Filter had a sound which was
unique quite pleasing to my ears. It very hard to describe, i would
say, lock yourself in a room with the system, experiment and listen.
When the time is right, it will be one of the first instruments to
make its way into the studio.
>
> >Grant has built an instrument that has its own
> sound and playability. The Electronic Music Community is lucky to
> have another Designer, in its fold, creating new ideas and designs.<
>
> True!
>
> >The Synthesizer and Classical music issue has been done and
> exhausted.<
>
> Oh, not true! My lament is that the synthesizer barely got started
> in the classical realm.
Very true. You have to remember the Analogue Modular Synthesizer is
probably the most powerful monophonic voice out there. It is a Made
to Measure instrument with control elements above and beyond all of
the musical instruments out there. 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.
It got sidetracked by pop and rock, as an
> expedient novelty. Today, it is used as a "band in a box"--and not
a
> very good band at that.
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.
This is true even for the music of Carlos.
> Carlos' analog works were outstanding and brought something really
> new to music.
I agree 100%.
Carlos' digital works tend toward sounding like cheesy
> imitations that could be had on a K-mart Casio (I refer you to
Peter
> and the Wolf, S-0B 2000, and Tales of Heaven and Hell.)
Heard most of those recordings and would rather listen to Talk Radio
than endure a listening session with those discs.
>
> >Like you said, " It is the *music* that matters ", appreciate the
> Wiard System for it's sonic character, control functions and it's
> music making abilities. Later, its Design esthetics might grow on
> you. :)<
>
> Highly unlikely. But who knows? :-)
People change with the passage of time. ;-)
RM
Show quoted textHide quoted text