Respectfully, no not at all. MIDI OUT on a violin would allow you to access analog synthesizers from a violin interface. Adding MIDI IN to a violin would be like having invisible hands and bow to control the sound.
This is my point exactly.
The musical, expressive, emotive, and etc. sounds of the violin are achieved through direct interaction with the device. What I was trying to portray with the simile was:
1. The violin is an instrument to be played, not programmed or controlled
2. Those who would wish to play violin but not learn HOW to play violin might be attracted to the concept of being able to play it through another instrument.
I'm trying to portray the analog synthesizer as a musical instrument which can be expressively played in realtime, and need not be portrayed as a computerized device which can be automated and controlled in a non-interactive manner.
dr_floyd wrote:I have no keyboard "solo chops", but I play analog CV synthesizers from wind controllers, foot controllers, fretless basses. I don't sequence, but I would add MIDI to all my vintage analogs if it were practical and safe just for the open range of control options.
I'm certainly not condeming what you do. If I'm condemning anything, it's the notion that analog synthesizers are merely sound modules for sequencing. I am trying to advocate actual performance. It sounds like that's exactly what you're doing!
I'm wondering what control options you might desire that MIDI would provide that CV doesn't, and whether you would like to have those functions automated, or whether you would like to directly be in control of them?
Intended? You mean as keyboard articulated soloing instruments?
No. As I stated in a previous post, I am not insisting that the keyboard is the only way to control an analog synthesizer. I am suggesting that analog synthesizers were intended to be performance devices, and not sound modules for sequencing.
Not that there is anything WRONG with sequencing analog synths... my god, I've done it myself. However, that should not be the FOCUS as might be suggested by Moog creating more devices geared in that direction.
Even Bob Moog didn't want to have a traditional keyboard with his first modular.
It was those who sought Moog's designs who rallied against the keyboard. (primarily one of Moog's first customers, Vladimir Ussachevsky) Moog was ambivalent about it until Herb Deutsch, Walter Sear, Eric Siday and others encouraged him to. Moog was always about giving musicians what they wanted, and they wanted keyboards.
That is not to say that the keyboard is superior, merely to say that Moog went with what people wanted and was not opposed to the keyboard.
I thought the point of the synthesizer was to develop your own intention, it can perform absolutely any sound generating need, including sequencing, chops soloing, or annoying noises.
The point of the synthesizer was to create a integrated studio of electronic devices which could be used to generate electronic music. If a person seeks to create electronic music with computers or alternate control devices or sequencing or anything they want, that's their business.
However, Moog is a company with a long history of performance-oriented analog keyboard-based synthesizers. That is their niche market. I am not trying to limit anyone's creativity, or decry their method of expressing that creativity, I am merely speaking against the increasing notion that synthesizers are for techno artists to program and automate, as opposed to being for musicians to expressively perform with. Any idiot in the world can sequence... it requires very little musicianship, skill or creativity. (I speak from experience, ha ha) It would pain me to see Moog begin to cater to that amateur market which is outside of the market in which they have authority.
And, again... I don't mean to condemn anyone's method of music making. While I defend the analog synthesizer as a performance device, and decry MIDI in regard to it, I am not against MIDI. I have used MIDI extensively since it was released. I use it even today... I use a MIDI controller keyboard, a hardware sampler, and a computer with sequencing software on it whenever I do any scoring. I am not anti-MIDI, and I am not suggesting that MIDI can't be used in a musical fashion, and I am in no way condemning anyone as unmusical for using it... I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did. However, I think it's important to keep the analog synthesizer as a realtime performance device because that's what it is. There are plenty of modules and software solutions for those who seek electronic sounds to be controlled by sequencers, etc. And often, I think the only reason electronic non-keyboard playing musicians SO seek Moogs is for the name. Sure, they have a great quality of sound, but it's not like they can do things that software synthesizers can't... they are quite limited in comparison to some of the powerful software synthesizers. Why keep making analog synth keyboards at all? Because there are musicians out there who know how to and want to play them expressively in realtime like musical instruments! I am one of those, and would like to insure that that option still exists... analog synths went away for a decade and a half... it's nice to see them back. I would not like to see them reabsorbed by the digital world.
Anyway, I'm surprised there is no more interest in the Haken Fingerboard. Seems to me like the future of MIDI/CV controllers in that you can use it as a traditional keyboard, but it also offers many more tactile possibilities. Remember Bob Moog was working on a controller keyboard where each key had up/down pressure and also side to side wiggle as a control source.
I support the use and creation of alternate controllers! I would LOVE to have a massive ribbon controller, myself.