What is the means-purpose relation of a synth patch?

mosc · Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject:

Jan, I think it is definitely music.

seraph · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:25 am Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:16 am Post subject:

I think of noodles as a derivitive of wind chimes or of aoliean harps. The instrument is built by humans, but the performer is [God || chance || nature].

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Kassen · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:38 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:51 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:58 am Post subject:

Elektro, Jan, I am of cource in full agreement with your views.

By the way, I´ve taken to using the word "composer" and "piece" for everything because I´ve started to experience them as a nicely neutral words. From time to time I need to discuss the realtion between moder dance music and "classical" music and on those occasions it´s nice to have neutral words. For me it also implies a sense of accptance of anything as valid as lang as the maker fiels he is expressing something. Noodles are "pieces" or "works", so are field recordings, bach´s etudes and his large works too, as well as the latest techno hit you just got in on whitelabel.

I´ve also grown attached to reading "composing" as meaning "putting something together", that´s perhaps exageratedly litteral but I find it works.

Kassen · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject:

Brings to mind that there are several new musical concepts in the 20th century that we are building upon, whether in patching or in composition in general.

1) Overthrowing the "tyranny of the bar line". Composing in poly rhythms and poly meters. (Stravinsky, Charles Ives and many others).
2) The incorporation of chance (John Cage)
3) The incorporation of non-traditional sounds, even noise- (Varese, the Futurists, and many others)
4) The joy of electronically generated sounds (too numerous to mention).
5) Algorithmic composition.

If one is working in pop or jazz, then all of these techniques aren't going to be significant. But, the modular synthesizer and other instruments we have today make experimenting in all of these areas convenient. So the questions isn't just about patching, it's about the means-purpose relation of one's music.

seraph · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject:

I think I have experienced this "blur between istrument and composition" using Ableton Live. that application is hardly identifiable as a sequencer. it's a "compositional" tool. each instrument shape ideas developed thru it and Live is no exception.

seraph · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject:

Axiom · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:

Sorry but I haven't read all replies so forgive me if I will write something just written by others.

First of all I'm a former bass player.. for ten years i've played mostly rock/metal, something jazz and a lot of progressive metal. I've also played guitars and now, by two years, i'm into synthesis. Just for my usual creative process, I use to make patches in relationship to my composition. Usually I will begin developing an idea using piano or guitar.. for an harmonic structure. Then I will develop the melody and all sounds that fits my needs. Otherwise can be a patch that inspires me new music.. a dark sweep pad, for instance.

Btw, I think that doesn't matters at all what is the relationship.. everyone have its own creative style and inspiration is such a personal thing. This is why some artists can be inspired by others and why different styles can be mixed together to get new flavors Smile

As Queen saids: It's a kind of magic.

Musically,
Luca

blue hell · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject:

blue hell · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject:

nescivi · Joined: Mar 23, 2005 Posts: 94 Location: Montreal

for statistics sake: I started playing and composing on the piano, and I still do occasionally.
then I decided to study physics and acoustics to approach the whole thing from another side, and then I got to making electronic music...

At the moment I am working on interfaces for my electronic music. My thoughts are at the moment also blurring this line between composing and performing/playing the instrument, as I try to find a way to not only influence directly the stuff that is played now, but also let my interface influence the overall structure of the piece. Roughly speaking this goes like: I play a "C", so the piece gets a bit more of "C"-ness over it, however if I play more "D"'s, then the D-ness of the piece will become stronger and more determine the structure.
These kind of things, I also try to extend to beat-patterns and ornament-patterns.

At the moment I am not content yet with how this works, but slowly I am getting there....

seraph · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:32 am Post subject:

nescivi · Joined: Mar 23, 2005 Posts: 94 Location: Montreal

oh, uhm, maybe I should mention that I also built a couple of acoustical instruments Smile

jksuperstar · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:45 am Post subject:

(for statistic's sake as well) I play drums. Never was much of a keyboardist (but got the G2 keys because of the interface). And after playing several Jazz stints, as well as with electro music enclaves, I love the complete interaction between how my rig is setup (this is particularly dominating with drums), what sounds I am using, and what context (ie-the "rest" of the composition, the audience mood) I am playing in. Improvisational music I think takes these things under more scrutiny, becuase the music made *depends* very highly on those many things, apart from the score. I used to play drums with a dedicated synthesist/sampler friend...I'd play MIDI'd drums, while he constantly changed the sounds I was playing. Then I'd change the layout of drums and start again. I found it to be the most rewarding experience in understanding the relation of all of these various aspects, largely because everything was laid out in a short period of time, so I could compare what worked and what did not, much as you'd view a menu. My playing style reacted to the sounds he developed, and vice versa. When taken live, the other elements of audience, energy, emotion/mood, timing, it all just became one big ball of parameters that were undeniably inter-related. It almost came down to insticts and evolution to choose what was *right* for that moment.

However, irregardless of acoustics or electronics, I think all sounds and interfaces have a natural "style" that they (want?) to be played. I know someone with a MIDI'd guitar...but you wouldn't know he's playing guitar when he summons a flute sound, because he changes his playing style to one suitable for the sounds of a flute. Not to imply all cliches and stereo-types are fulfilled, just that a flute has a style of play, due to it's holes, overblowing, monophonic quality, etc. that just becomes "the flute". So in this sense, he's been able to make his interface flexible enough to adapt to various sounds & styles.

Anyway, I guess my interpretation of the synth/patch is just a way to store how the synth is programmed, since it is the computer model/components that the synth was designed with--it just follows suite. Whether it is a sound, an instrument, or a composition, means nothing to me. In fact, I'm not sure any of those terms mean anything specific either, though I'd use them in a sentence, and most likely do it correctly for social conversation.

(old joke-"What do you call someone that hangs out with musicians?.....a drummer")

Mohoyoho · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:43 am Post subject:

I've come a bit late to this thread, but here's my angle:

I see synth patches as new colors to paint with. I don't want them to sound like conventional instruments, but rather something fresh that satisfies my aural senses. If I want a piano sound, then I'll get a piano. If I want a sax, then I'll pull out my Conn tenor. But having a synth opens up a whole new world of sounds, some never created before. To me, that is the main point in having a synth. I like exporing the new sounds it can create, but the bottom line is to create music with these new sounds.

When I design a patch I usually have an idea of what I am looking for; a textural rhythmic pad, a lead, an effect, something for a stab, unusual drum sequence, or whatever. I see them as a means to an end; the end being an ambient composition.

Many times a patch inspires me, and I'll base a composition around it. Even though I am an ambient artist, I still use basic music and compositional theory and sensibilities to guide me.

Kassen · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:53 am Post subject:

gravehill · Joined: Apr 12, 2005 Posts: 49 Location: Berlin, Germany

Also joining a bit late but who cares. When I program synths, the first thing is that I want them to sound either like synths or something out of this world. If I want something to sound like a real physical instrument, I either play it myself or use samples.

There are basically two ways how I approach programming sounds. If I need a certain type of sound in my music I usually choose a VST that I know well to be able to produce the sound I'm after. Then I listen to the sound in conjunction with the music when I'm programming it.

Another thing usually happens when I'm not particularly inspired to write music but start just noodling with synths making sounds for possible future use. Quite often this is also the case when learning a new VST synth. Then I'll just noodle with the synth seeing if I'll be able to come up with something useful. Sometimes I decide if I'll aim for a pad or a monophonic lead, for example, but the ultimate goal is to create something (anything) which sparks a further inspiration and thus finds a place in musical context.

I do view certain types of complex patches pieces of music in themselves but on the other hand they are very small pieces of music and rarely completely satisfying just by themselves. This has more to do with musical taste than any "real reason", really.

And for the statistics, I'm originally a guitarist and I've learned other instruments along the years when I've felt a need to. I've been playing keyboards about ten years now but didn't dive deeper into the world of synthesis until just a few years ago. Recently I have started increasingly noodling with modular synths. I have Arturias Moog Modular V and demo and freeware stuff (Synthedit). I have experienced a huge boost in how I understand the different aspects of synthesis after getting familiar with modular environments.

morbius · Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject:

My God... after reading all of that, I felt like I was stupid, or on Nitrous- Oxide... or should be drunken

"Patches"... (wasn't there a song by that name?).... anyway- the literal version would be to make an electrical connection from one device to another... as in various studio devices... and then with modular synthesizers... and now, because those connections happen within microprocessors 'n chips and the like... digital synths... virtuals, etc.

But also, I/we refer to the sounds produced by synths, as "patches", as well. I'll have several independent patches running on my modular at any given time.

But what you mean by "means-purpose".... well, after reading all of this, I better get my "Jim Beam I.V." going again. Whew!