If you want to get good at keyboard training whats better than piano lessons. knowing proper fingereing of chords and scales won't come from anything other than....piano lessons.
Its hard to know how to play the keyboard like a trumpet or articulate a keyboards like a sax and getting a series of notes relative to whatever scale or chord progression you are playing without piano lessons.
And it doesn't take hours and hours and hours of Hanon training to do that either.
Programming synths and playing keyboard ?
-
hieronymous
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:09 am
- Location: northern CA
- Contact:
-
ozy
indeed the "piano lesson" issue is a bit thorny. I stand partially corrected.
What erick says is obvious.
If your pinky can't find a 9th, you probably should stick to software sequencers.
And when I underestimated formal piano training I maybe forgot that... well... I did a lot of scales on piano before looking at a keyboard like it wasn't just a keyboard.
Probably I came to forgot something I just automatized.
Once this is said, I confirm that chord voicings are not the same on a piano and on a synthesizer, when the synth generates brass-like sounds, or pads, or when you close the cutoff, ramp up resonance, a rely on harmonics to be the main content of your sound.
Touch is not the same as on a piano when you play sax or violin patches.
Not to mention aftertouch or pitch bend or modulation controllers (I play plenty of breath control, eg).
For all these purposes, knowing pianop voigings and technique is a good start, but, especially starting at a mature age, can be limiting as well as far as
"synthesizer programming and playing" [which is the issue]
is concerned.
If the issue was "how to perform perfect piano solos on a synth", Erick would be right 110%, not just 50%.
What erick says is obvious.
If your pinky can't find a 9th, you probably should stick to software sequencers.
And when I underestimated formal piano training I maybe forgot that... well... I did a lot of scales on piano before looking at a keyboard like it wasn't just a keyboard.
Probably I came to forgot something I just automatized.
Once this is said, I confirm that chord voicings are not the same on a piano and on a synthesizer, when the synth generates brass-like sounds, or pads, or when you close the cutoff, ramp up resonance, a rely on harmonics to be the main content of your sound.
Touch is not the same as on a piano when you play sax or violin patches.
Not to mention aftertouch or pitch bend or modulation controllers (I play plenty of breath control, eg).
For all these purposes, knowing pianop voigings and technique is a good start, but, especially starting at a mature age, can be limiting as well as far as
"synthesizer programming and playing" [which is the issue]
is concerned.
If the issue was "how to perform perfect piano solos on a synth", Erick would be right 110%, not just 50%.
You know, after rereading m post, I think i came across as perhaps a little harsh. My apologies if you got that same impression.
However I posted my initial responce about piano lessons because the OP was asking how to improve keyboard technique. I would essentially respond with the piano lessons approach because I don't know who I am talking to, or their level of talent, their ear or their commitment to their endeavor. One thing that probably should be said more often is that the possibillity exists that playing an instrument is impossible for them. Some people simply don't have it within their grasp, the innate abillity of rhythm or the ear to reckognize pitches. While I don't think that is the case with the original poster, piano lessons will surely be a make or break sort of approach.
This all comes back down to what I already said, you don't have to have ANY music abillity to program a synth. Programming is objective. Performing A will result in B affect on the destination. It should be noted that you probably don't have to have ANY musical abillity at all to arrange synthesizer sounds on a recording or to perform experimental music, as was the intention of the earliest synths.
The intent here is:
"I want to understand my synths from top to bottom, is playing the keyboard and programming synths two different things or should I specialize in one and not the other?"
Your BRAIN/EAR has to "find" the 9th, whether or not you pinky can reach it is a different story or a matter of technique. Keith Jarrett had STUBBY hands but is one of the greatest Jazz pianists.
Here is where his problem began:
"progress is now slowing down due to awkward finger positions." This is very typical of the bad habits that develop with the absence of piano lessons. You need a teacher to tell you the most efficient ways to play scales and how to change chords without stressing your hands or burning up energy. Piano Books are only as good as the person who writes them. Teachers are needed to expound on ideas and can answer any questions that the book doesn't cover. A Good teacher also knows the best books to use, which is something you can't possibly know just by looking at them, especially if you lack theory training.
In my opinion, piano lessons would give you the fundamentals you would need to do more than "piano solos on a synth" by allowing you to translate the technical aspects of what you have learned and apply them to an instrument which can require a different approach. A properly regulated action and weighted keybed will provide dexterity in your hands though one will probably lose that dexterity with the fast action of the Voyager.
For example, an organ requires a different approach, and a Melotron requires an entirely different "spider-like" technique to allow the tapes to reset. The Voyager is also a monophonic instrument, but if the original poster really starts to get into synthesis and wants to get a polyphonic synth, then the transition from a monophonic keyboard can be virtually effortless. I guess I went way out of the way to say that Piano lessons will greatly help a synth player.
The only thing that I will differ with you is on the "Mature Age" statement. Im not the type to INSIST that my child should be shackled to the piano when he or she is a fetus, but the developing brain and the synapses present indicate that the optimal "mature" age is 2.5 to 3 years. Once you reach a certian age, you lose brain function and this is said to occur in the early 20's. Its NEVER too late to learn something unless you just don't have the cognitive abillity.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have had extremely MINIMAL theory training, and only a few MINIMALLY informal piano lessons. I can read bass clef, but not adequately enough to take sight reading jobs. I can do lead sheets okay but lack adequate practice reading rhythms.
Anything that I can do on the keyboard is a result of years and years of noodling around. In essence my advice on this thread would be to "do as I say not as I do" as my reccomendations have exceeded my own personal practice.
Respectfully,
Eric
Rhythmicons
However I posted my initial responce about piano lessons because the OP was asking how to improve keyboard technique. I would essentially respond with the piano lessons approach because I don't know who I am talking to, or their level of talent, their ear or their commitment to their endeavor. One thing that probably should be said more often is that the possibillity exists that playing an instrument is impossible for them. Some people simply don't have it within their grasp, the innate abillity of rhythm or the ear to reckognize pitches. While I don't think that is the case with the original poster, piano lessons will surely be a make or break sort of approach.
This all comes back down to what I already said, you don't have to have ANY music abillity to program a synth. Programming is objective. Performing A will result in B affect on the destination. It should be noted that you probably don't have to have ANY musical abillity at all to arrange synthesizer sounds on a recording or to perform experimental music, as was the intention of the earliest synths.
The intent here is:
"I want to understand my synths from top to bottom, is playing the keyboard and programming synths two different things or should I specialize in one and not the other?"
Your BRAIN/EAR has to "find" the 9th, whether or not you pinky can reach it is a different story or a matter of technique. Keith Jarrett had STUBBY hands but is one of the greatest Jazz pianists.
Here is where his problem began:
"progress is now slowing down due to awkward finger positions." This is very typical of the bad habits that develop with the absence of piano lessons. You need a teacher to tell you the most efficient ways to play scales and how to change chords without stressing your hands or burning up energy. Piano Books are only as good as the person who writes them. Teachers are needed to expound on ideas and can answer any questions that the book doesn't cover. A Good teacher also knows the best books to use, which is something you can't possibly know just by looking at them, especially if you lack theory training.
In my opinion, piano lessons would give you the fundamentals you would need to do more than "piano solos on a synth" by allowing you to translate the technical aspects of what you have learned and apply them to an instrument which can require a different approach. A properly regulated action and weighted keybed will provide dexterity in your hands though one will probably lose that dexterity with the fast action of the Voyager.
For example, an organ requires a different approach, and a Melotron requires an entirely different "spider-like" technique to allow the tapes to reset. The Voyager is also a monophonic instrument, but if the original poster really starts to get into synthesis and wants to get a polyphonic synth, then the transition from a monophonic keyboard can be virtually effortless. I guess I went way out of the way to say that Piano lessons will greatly help a synth player.
The only thing that I will differ with you is on the "Mature Age" statement. Im not the type to INSIST that my child should be shackled to the piano when he or she is a fetus, but the developing brain and the synapses present indicate that the optimal "mature" age is 2.5 to 3 years. Once you reach a certian age, you lose brain function and this is said to occur in the early 20's. Its NEVER too late to learn something unless you just don't have the cognitive abillity.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have had extremely MINIMAL theory training, and only a few MINIMALLY informal piano lessons. I can read bass clef, but not adequately enough to take sight reading jobs. I can do lead sheets okay but lack adequate practice reading rhythms.
Anything that I can do on the keyboard is a result of years and years of noodling around. In essence my advice on this thread would be to "do as I say not as I do" as my reccomendations have exceeded my own personal practice.
Respectfully,
Eric
Rhythmicons
Support the Bob Moog Foundation:
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
-
ozy
eric: "Its NEVER too late to learn something "
I beg to differ. I am a sport coach (and a coaching theorist), and I respectfully beg to TOTALLY differ.
Somebody who is posting on a moog website and who asks about 3500 usd synth programming,
is certainly not a kid nor a teenager. He probably is at leat in his 30s.
Either he has already some musical capacity, or IT IS too late for him to acquire manual dexterity (Jarrett chubby fingers are... ahem... a metaphor. His hands can be chubbier than wakeman's, but the man has definitely some HUGE hand-ear coordination, not to mention artistical skills).
As for "synth programming being an objective task", well...
Yes. Proviso you don't mistake quantification for objectivity.
A moog filter is a moog filter, an open filter is an open filter. A specific filter will self-oscillate at a specifc setting. This is objective. And quantifiable.
But.
wether thousands and thousands of ugly presets in the last Yamaha or Korg do-it-all workstation are ART, good art, good music, or just plain bleep...
... well, that is not quantifiable.
The judgement about those presets may be objective in a wide philosophical sense (I, for example, think that Beethoven is good for objective reasons, non just according to my own personal judgement, but it would take a lot of discussion to support that - and I wouldn't extend that kinf of judgement on a single tool - like a mass-produced synth preset is),
but that doesn't mean "good for everybody", nor it means "reproducible or transmissible by standard measurement".
In simpler terms, ther's no such thing as
---> creating sounds as painting by numbers.
I'd like to be more specific but I don't think a forum is the correct place.
Boy, is this discussion becoming serious...
I beg to differ. I am a sport coach (and a coaching theorist), and I respectfully beg to TOTALLY differ.
Somebody who is posting on a moog website and who asks about 3500 usd synth programming,
is certainly not a kid nor a teenager. He probably is at leat in his 30s.
Either he has already some musical capacity, or IT IS too late for him to acquire manual dexterity (Jarrett chubby fingers are... ahem... a metaphor. His hands can be chubbier than wakeman's, but the man has definitely some HUGE hand-ear coordination, not to mention artistical skills).
As for "synth programming being an objective task", well...
Yes. Proviso you don't mistake quantification for objectivity.
A moog filter is a moog filter, an open filter is an open filter. A specific filter will self-oscillate at a specifc setting. This is objective. And quantifiable.
But.
wether thousands and thousands of ugly presets in the last Yamaha or Korg do-it-all workstation are ART, good art, good music, or just plain bleep...
... well, that is not quantifiable.
The judgement about those presets may be objective in a wide philosophical sense (I, for example, think that Beethoven is good for objective reasons, non just according to my own personal judgement, but it would take a lot of discussion to support that - and I wouldn't extend that kinf of judgement on a single tool - like a mass-produced synth preset is),
but that doesn't mean "good for everybody", nor it means "reproducible or transmissible by standard measurement".
In simpler terms, ther's no such thing as
---> creating sounds as painting by numbers.
I'd like to be more specific but I don't think a forum is the correct place.
Boy, is this discussion becoming serious...
-
ozy
1. With the learning curve involved in understanding the principles of analogue subtractive synthesis, engaging in such practices would be beneficial as studies are showing that the key to living longer is keeping your brain actively engaged in new things. The complexities within Bob Moogs designs will warrant years of study before one fully masters these techniques.
2. Synthesis is hardly physical so unless one is bedridden with osteoarthritis, I don't quite see how this compares to sports. Unless perhaps ones hands are so swollen they cannot play a keyboard.
3. You never know about the age of people and their resources. I saw a picture of some 12 year old on the dotcom website with Keith Emerson as his idol with a HUGE modular synth (obviously driven by his father). I do agree with you about the original poster, however, I have to play the devils advocate. I was 14 years old when I began my musical studies and if I would have had the money I would be on here wondering why synthesis is so complicated and sporting my voyager.
4. I don't agree, my father is almost 60 and if he workd on the Felip excercises im sure he would get some of that back. Of corse not as much as he had before but it is not as if the original poster will never play a keyboard. I will say though that usually refinement comes in age and makes up for the technical prowess a more youthful player may posess.
5. Synthesizer cookbook. The properties of synthesis is physics. Certian instruments produce certian waveshapes which have certian harmonic properties and evolve over a period of time. . If you have the tools, then yes you can paint by number your panel settings on your synthesizer and-as accurately as electronics will allow-achieve the desired sound. It becomes subjective when one begins to discuss the accuracy in the replication. Isn't something that is objective something that is easily quantifiable?
2. Synthesis is hardly physical so unless one is bedridden with osteoarthritis, I don't quite see how this compares to sports. Unless perhaps ones hands are so swollen they cannot play a keyboard.
3. You never know about the age of people and their resources. I saw a picture of some 12 year old on the dotcom website with Keith Emerson as his idol with a HUGE modular synth (obviously driven by his father). I do agree with you about the original poster, however, I have to play the devils advocate. I was 14 years old when I began my musical studies and if I would have had the money I would be on here wondering why synthesis is so complicated and sporting my voyager.
4. I don't agree, my father is almost 60 and if he workd on the Felip excercises im sure he would get some of that back. Of corse not as much as he had before but it is not as if the original poster will never play a keyboard. I will say though that usually refinement comes in age and makes up for the technical prowess a more youthful player may posess.
5. Synthesizer cookbook. The properties of synthesis is physics. Certian instruments produce certian waveshapes which have certian harmonic properties and evolve over a period of time. . If you have the tools, then yes you can paint by number your panel settings on your synthesizer and-as accurately as electronics will allow-achieve the desired sound. It becomes subjective when one begins to discuss the accuracy in the replication. Isn't something that is objective something that is easily quantifiable?
Last edited by EricK on Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Support the Bob Moog Foundation:
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
-
ozy
eric: "Certian instruments produce certian waveshapes which have certian harmonic properties and evolve over a period of time. . If you have the tools, then yes you can paint by number your panel settings on your synthesizer and-as accurately as electronics will allow-achieve the desired sound"
come on,
this is "replicating one machine on another"
nothing to do with "synth programming" meant as CREATING new sounds.
As for sports training having nothing to do with musical training, well...
just try both of them.
I tried music at 5 and formal sport at 8, and...
well, just try
come on,
this is "replicating one machine on another"
nothing to do with "synth programming" meant as CREATING new sounds.
As for sports training having nothing to do with musical training, well...
just try both of them.
I tried music at 5 and formal sport at 8, and...
well, just try
You are splitting hairs now. SYnth programming is creating new sounds. In a burst of creative trial and error you can end up with the sound of a Rhodes or Clavinet without setting out to do that. This is why learning the properties of synthesis (painting by numbers) will guide you to knowing HOW to create new sounds.
Synthesis is replication by its very definition.
I did formal sports too (little league) and I won a trophy (we all did). I also took Taekwondo at age 5 and if I stayed in it I probably would have had a black belt by 6.
Hey,
Don't take my responses as hostile. I rather enjoy this conversation.
Eric
Synthesis is replication by its very definition.
I did formal sports too (little league) and I won a trophy (we all did). I also took Taekwondo at age 5 and if I stayed in it I probably would have had a black belt by 6.
Hey,
Don't take my responses as hostile. I rather enjoy this conversation.
Eric
Support the Bob Moog Foundation:
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
I am using this book http://www.shop-com.co.uk/Learn_to_Play ... urceid=309 , which shows all the finger positions, i was doing ok until i had to play a B minor chord then an F sharp minor chord straight after it which is not easy, this is an amazing book, the exercises and the tunes in it really appeal to me, if i got piano lessons this is how i would like to be taught, i just imagine piano lessons would be quite stuffy.
-
ozy
erick "Synthesis is replication by its very definition. "
No, it isn't, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION.
Sampling is replication.
Synthesis is, etymologically and factually, assembling something new from basic components.
The discussion is losing sharpness and interest.
One thing that I hate is forum-generated oversimplification and drifting.
Sorry, but that's it.
No, it isn't, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION.
Sampling is replication.
Synthesis is, etymologically and factually, assembling something new from basic components.
The discussion is losing sharpness and interest.
One thing that I hate is forum-generated oversimplification and drifting.
Sorry, but that's it.
With Synthesis, you are using the properties of Physics to replicate on a machine the process which already occurs in nature.
Ozy,
Look, theres no reason to get upset, and theres really no reason to argue about it, we obviously have differing ideas, and thats cool. Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I look forward to your contributions here and I don't want you to think that Im here specifically to have the last word or to run people off, as is typical on other forums. You brought up some good points and before we deviated into the semantics, Paul figured out what he wanted to do.
Eric
Ozy,
Look, theres no reason to get upset, and theres really no reason to argue about it, we obviously have differing ideas, and thats cool. Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I look forward to your contributions here and I don't want you to think that Im here specifically to have the last word or to run people off, as is typical on other forums. You brought up some good points and before we deviated into the semantics, Paul figured out what he wanted to do.
Eric
Support the Bob Moog Foundation:
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
Dang, I just made a big bowl of popcorn and you guys quit!
(I've actually enjoyed the differance in perception you two have on the subject. But I still don't see how my wrestling, football or motorcycle racing have helped me play the keys. If anything, they have made it more difficult from all the injury to the hands. I've never broken a sweat playing piano when I wasn't under 1000's of watts of lighting.)
(I've actually enjoyed the differance in perception you two have on the subject. But I still don't see how my wrestling, football or motorcycle racing have helped me play the keys. If anything, they have made it more difficult from all the injury to the hands. I've never broken a sweat playing piano when I wasn't under 1000's of watts of lighting.)
"Music expresses that which can not be said and on which it is impossible to be silent."
