museslave wrote:You're right, let me retract part of what I'm saying... those people who implement software synths in a fashion without using the presets should not be included in my complaint.
However, I still suggest that software, with all of its convenience, stability, low-cost, and digital sound is not the same experience as a hardware modular.
[etc]
Yes, I think between us we're establishing something. In particular I think you've hit the nail precisely on the head when you distinguish between patch memories and presets. It's the use of presets that makes for a lazy and non-creative attitude to synth playing. With that in mind I'd return to my point about the player's attitude. I think it's crucial that patches don't get dumbed down into presets. A patch becomes a preset when it's used blindly and uncreatively.
I'd agree that marketing tends to aim at the preset mentality. But really, that's where much of the market is. That's unfortunate in one way, but the fact that there is such a market keeps prices down and makes it easier for the creative ones amongst us to afford these instruments. The fact that something like the Arturia Modular V has so many creative possibiities for those of us who are willing and motivated to explore them makes that instrument worthwhile. It's cheap and widely available because a lot of unimaginative people will buy it as well, but that really needn't concern us. I think if the design of an instrument is poor because it's aimed at the preset mentality then we're losing something, but if the design is open enough for us to really make creative use of it then it doesn't matter what other people do.
Wide avilability will always mean more bad music. But it also increases the amount of good music. people who could never have afforded a Moog modular now have something approaching one, even if it isn't quite the same as the `real' thing. I know one very creative and talented synth player who's been pushing back the boundaries for decades, starting with the earliest analogue monosynths. He's never been in the Moog modular financial bracket but he now has the Arturuia and I look forward very much to what he's going to do with it. The fact is, that piece of software has given a great musician something he wouldn't otherwise have had access to.
I'm sure the Modular V isn't the same as having a hardware Moog modular. It crossed my mind to consider if I could raise the 20,000 Euros that Klaus Schulze was asking for his Moog modular, but I decided I couldn't. But I'm very glad the Modular V gives me at least some approach to the same sonic areas. It adds tremendously to what my Voyager can do.
I agree with TheWaag as well about the incovenience of having to scroll between screens when using the Modular V. On the other hand, Klaus' modular wouldn't have fitted into my studio and would have had to sit in an adjoining room, so maybe things are never really rosy. At the end of the day I'd much rather scroll between screens to access more sonic possibilities than not need to scroll between screens because there are no more options on the next screen. Nothing is perfect. And I'd rather have something imperfect that I can use than know there was something perfect somewhere else that I'd never have access to.
In a perfect world there'd be a massive Moog modular that my studio would contain comfortably. It'd be polyphonic, have patch memories, and be ultra-stable. But that just isn't going to happen, and the Modular V comes a reasonably close second.
I can't see the original post from here, but I wonder, is the real question behind this discussion as it's now developed something like:
Why do so many synth players today want everything to be given to them for nothing? And did we get better music when people had to work harder to make a sound from a synth?
Please amend that version of the question or throw it out if it isn't helpful. For my part, I think that attitude has always been there, but it seems to have reached epic proportions today. In music it's not only a synth problem, but also a problem with looping and cut and paste software that promises the abilitry to make music without any creative effort. And that really
is a false promise, because music simply doesn't exist without creative effort. But again, for every creative musician there'll be a multitude of posers and copyists.
I do wish more younger people were creating innovative new music, though. I'm sure I've reached an age where I should need to make an effort to understand the new ideas of the next generation.
