Expressiveness (was Software vs. Hardware)

[James R. Coplin]

> > I was thinking about this.  What is the minimum number of
> simultaneous
> > parameters to be musically useful?
> 
> 1.
> 
> > Is there a minimum?
> 
> Yes. 1.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on this.  Name me an instrument with only
1 control parameter that you wouldn't mind listening to.  I think you need
at least two and four seems to be what most traditional instruments have at
a gross performance level.

> I think it's a false conclusion. And, I'm not reeeallly sure that
> "expressiveness" can even be measured. Can it?

No, I don't know that it can and that's why I used anecdotal experience.  I
feel that the instruments I've used with fewer controls are more expressive
for performance as you have enough breathing room to really concentrate on
those expressions.  There is no way to think deep and hard on 20 different
parameters during a performance.  Also, I'm not sure an audience can track
that many variable for an emotional response.

 
> Electronics "least expressive"? Whoah. I can't believe you said that in
> HERE?

I did and I will fight anyone who disagrees with me.  Of all the instruments
I've worked with, I've spent more time with electronic ones than anything
else and I consider myself an electronic musician, not a pianist.

> Interesting. So, what, in your opinion, do electronic instruments need
> to do to be as expressive with as few control parameters?

I think the great strength of electronics is the large number of parameters
available for sculpting sound.  However, after we have a sound made, I think
as performers we spend too much time trying to manipulate too many of these
parameters during performance.  The result is mush that is often lacks
emotional punch.  I was amazed by Kitaro in concert.  Love or hate the guy,
he can play.  I watched as he played several tunes completely with the pitch
knob for the oscillator on an old Roland analog. It looked like he was just
triggering a note from a footswitch and gliding the pitch with the knob.
His other hand alternated between the sustain level on the VCA and the
filter cutoff.  The result was incredibly lyrical. He was playing it like an
instrument, not a collection of parameters.

I had a similar experience early on when I got my minimoog sometime in the
early 90's.  I had a friend of mine over who was a road warrior from back in
the day and wanted to see the old beast again.  I had kind of as a joke gone
through the patch book and programmed up some of the instruments like steel
guitar and cello.  They sounded nothing like a cello.  Utter garbage.  I was
right in the middle of a rant about what a useless bit of patch this stuff
was and why didn't they see the more obvious patches that wer far more
interesting in my then uninformed opinion.  My friend walked over to the
mini with the cello patch and proceeded to play a bit from Dvorak's Cello
concerto.  The difference was that he *played* the mini.  Not just the notes
like I had.  He was working the filter, amp, etc. and it sounded amazing.  

We need to get back to a focus on actually playing music instead of
programming parameters. At some point, synths stopped being instruments and
became sound generators comprised of independent parameters. I'm not sure
when it occurred but it definitely did.  Part of the reason is
democratization of music.  I think this has been great.  I'm still blown
away that I can record a track in my home and listen to it on CD in my car.
I'm even more blown away when the bar produces a half a dozen remixes of
someone's track and they are all smashing.   However, there has also been
the underbelly where music creation in many ways has become too easy.  Most
electronic musicians have not dedicated themselves to an instrument and sat
down and really slogged through the time it takes to begin to play one.
Instead, we have moved the definition of performance to allow montage lab
equipment assemblages to pass as music and art. Sequenced, arranged
parameters have become the norm and the true performance is the aberration.
You know why the players of the 70's wore capes?  Because they earned
them... 

James R. Coplin