museslave wrote:
Kevin-
The synthesizer is an instrument which developed monophonically. Monophony suited the technology. If we're going to talk about what is undeniable, it is the fact that people play monophonic devices FAR differently than they play polyphonic devices. When people play a monophonic synthesizer, they tend to be more concerned with timbre. When people play a polyphonic synthesizer, they tend to be more concerned with presets and chords. This is not supposition, it is fact.
If it's a fact I'm sure you can show me a reference or citing that's not based on opinion?
Was there some questionaire I missed out on? A study maybe?
Either way you're talking about people, not synths.
People do what people do for any number of reasons.
Lumping them together does them no respect. Saying it's a fact, even less so.
There are many people who got a monosynth and were shocked to find they couldn't play chords on it.
That was their preconception, not the synth creating some Spock-like mindmeld.
No one's shocked they can play one note at a time on keyboard.
I myself can be happy with a polyphonic synth played one note at a time.
Most Odysseys, 2600s and Oberheim two voice synths are played monophonically even though they can be played duophonically.
I know plenty of people who have Obeheim FVSs and play them monophonically as well as polyphonically.
They view their synths as a collection of smaller synths which is exactly what they are.
The control is theirs. The synth begs no one to play one note or ten. It's up to the person.
I simply don't see how one can generalize that most people concentrate on sound if given one note, but their chord if given many.
It is possible and very common to concentrate on both.
One doesn't exclude the other.
There certainly are many polyphonic synths with more mono firepower than many monophonic only synths.
What about them?
I don't see how their sound becomes any less interesting, honest or viable simply because one chooses to play only one note.
museslave wrote:unless they make it have the ability to program each voice individually as far as timbre, filtering, and articulation- which they won't, because that would be insanely expensive.
The desire for uniquely individual voices isn't a prerequisite to making music.
Music played with homogenous voices isn't necessarily inferior because every note has the same timbre.
Yes, one cannot get the same control from such a synth when going after the same effect as a quartet or choir, but not all music is like that.
The Oberheim SEM synths were very good at having different envs, lfos and other "modules" available for their myriad assignment methods.
They could mimic this technique to some degree.
But of course the machine can't read a player's mind and know which voice to assign to which melody line or part of a chord.
That still doesn't mean the result can't be musically interesting or valid.
museslave wrote:
Moog increasingly targets a youth-oriented culture. This is going to make money. But then again, those of us who are old synthesizer lovers don't make up much of a demographic.
Yes, Roland used to too. But they found they made a lot of money making digital pianos for old folk.
As they say, "you're only young once" and that would suggest one is old for a lot longer time and generally the elders have more money anyway.
So all I'm saying is that the cries for a polyphonic and modular gear ARE being made and falling on deaf ears.
Others, like SCI, Korg, Roland (no dummies to synths any of them) are instead capturing the market for polys.
But people
would buy a Moog polyphonic if it was available.
I think some might even play theirs one note at a time...
Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime. - R. Pupkin
