Synthesizer = artificial?

[grumphh]

A facsimile of the real.

Some synthesizers are intended to be just that (romplers), other synthesizers are intended to create "new" sounds but could also be used as facsimiles.

 

In any case - to answer this question, you would first have to define what you consider "the real" in this context

 

In no way however can you dispute that the sound generation of synthesizers is entirely man made /engineer designed and has nothing to do with natural sound generation.

[Tusks]

 

Tusks - if you ask those people what their connotations are with the word "artificial" - what they mean, I think you'll quickly arrive at the following soundbites: - you don't need talent - you only need to push one button - the machine does the work for you - it's fake But: - you do need talent to understand your tools, and it's easy to sort out those who don't. - if it was a matter of pushing one button we'd all be rich. - if it was the machine doing the work for you, you wouldn't have to spend time in the first place. - the sound that reaches their ears is a very real phenomenon. Whether they like it is a secondary matter. Ask on their definition of artificial.

 

 

I think you are on to something there. Grumphs question is a good one also. What do we mean by "real" in this context? I think we automatically fill in the blanks with corollary connotations of expressiveness, warmth, skill required, etc. I think it means "traditional" nothing more or less. IIRC the electrified guitar had to handle this same difficulty a few decades ago, until the body of idiom was developed for the instrument. I wonder if the first flute (the first pitched instrument?) had to encounter this problem also. After all it was clearly not human, not a drum and it had a pitched quality which would have been unusual, and perhaps cold.

 

I'll ask these questions. They seem like they would lead to a good conversation. Nice comments everyone. Keep it coming.

 

Jerry

[mono boy]

Two kinds of loud sounds in the natural world have been growing on the earth since time immemorial. One is the roll of thunder, the other the sound of volcanic eruption. Both of them were feared by mankind for many centuries as the anger of God. However even the roll of thunder has been proved to be the sound caused by an electric phenomenon - that is, it is an electronic sound. Volcanic sound, on the other hand, is produced by the eruption, impact and rubbing of the substances involved; later such dynamic sounds were made by tools - hammers, bellows to make fire, etc. With the passage of time some of these tools were gradually transformed into musical instruments. At present the method of blowing, beating, rubbing, etc., are incorporated into many musical instruments in the symphony orchestra.

Electric musical instruments, on the other hand, did not come into existence until the present century. In 1927 Leon Theremin devised the first electric musical instrument, whose pitch was controlled by placing the hand near to or away from its vertical rod. In 1928 Maurice Martenot, a French musician, invented the ondes martenot, which is considered the father of the present music synthesizer.

 

It has been said that electric sound is not expressive because it is not a natural sound but an artificial one made by a machine. However, I think that natural sound implies the rustle of the leaves by the wind, the murmur of a brook and the sound of the waves beating upon the shore. In pianos, violins, flutes and other instruments the determination of their musical scales and the methods of their resonance are made by the art of mankind, so their sounds are not intrinsically natural but mechanical.

 

Compared to the traditional instruments with a history of many centuries, electric musical instruments have a history of only 50 years. In addition, their shapes are not yet established, so the player is apt to become disorientated. Players of these instruments equivalent in ability to virtuosos of the piano or violin have not yet appeared. I think we must make more effort to study electric musical instruments for the future.

 

I have used a great variety of electrical sound producing and controlling devices, as in my previous album Snowflakes are Dancing. I have been encouraged to believe that my efforts have produced music that is truly expressive, evoking the emotions of a high musical experience. It is very rewarding.

 

- Isao Tomita

[Cloacal-X]

Interesting - the definition of artificial:

 

# S: (adj) artificial, unreal (contrived by art rather than nature) "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial sweeteners"

# S: (adj) artificial, contrived, hokey, stilted (artificially formal) "that artificial humility that her husband hated"; "contrived coyness"; "a stilted letter of acknowledgment"; "when people try to correct their speech they develop a stilted pronunciation"

# S: (adj) artificial (not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes)

 

The definition of artifice:

 

# S: (n) ruse, artifice (a deceptive maneuver (especially to avoid capture))

 

Also:

 

trickery or craft, skill, ingenuity

 

 

I think that the word "artificial" has some very different connotations than its etymological root would suggest. To say that synthesizers are artifices is pretty accurate, and to my way of thinking, a complement.

 

At any rate, I think synthesizers attempting to imitate real instruments are, by definition, artificial. Synthesizers engaged in the creation of unique sounds are as natural as anything else, as alien as the results may seem. They're merely devices obeying all laws of physics just like pianos, violins, horns, or even log drums. They're no more technologically advanced than any of the above instruments were at their inception...arguably, perhaps less so even.

 

They're just matter, they have no meaning except that which we assign. A carved stone is still a stone. Doped silicon, copper traces, phenolic exteriors...synthesizers are just a big ol' pile of universe, just like us.

[XorAxAx]

I like "it's magic."

Better yet: It's f**king magic! ™

[grumphh]

I think it means "traditional" nothing more or less.

 

Hmmm... traditional already exists and is a way too broad term without much meaning.

 

If you really want defining lines i am sure that you can narrow it down a bit and basically separate instruments into two groups, namely: "Those that naturally produce sounds" and "those that artificially produce sounds".

 

The simple definition then is: Any instrument that produces sound by moving parts physically exciting the air around it to create sound produces its sound in a natural way.

 

That would in the end mean that every amplified instrument insofar as its unique timbre relies on amplification processes* is producing its sound artificially.

 

In some senses "artificial" stands as the opposite of "real", so that i suggest that these definitions be used within the context of this topic.

 

Artificial instruments (under the above definition) can be divided into two more types of instruments: Those that pick up the motion of physically moving parts and amplify them, and those that use only electricity to generate sound.

 

I believe that those that use only electricity for sound generation are truly artificial, since they no longer have anything to do with naturally ocurring processes that generate sound.

 

 

-----------------------

*Even though an electric guitar can produce sound "naturally" that is usually not the sound we associate with the term "electric guitar", but rather the specific sound the guitars physical and electric components create in conjunction with an amplifier - hence the wording "insofar as its sound relies on amplification" - which also means that i would class electric guitar amongst the "artificial" instruments.

A classical guitar played through a huge PA would still be "natural" under this definition because the amplification is designed to only amplify, but not alter the naturally produced sound from the classical guitar. (Whether it succeeds is a different debate )

[Cloacal-X]

 

..with no soul or feeling.

 

 

Drum machines no different than organs. They do what you tell them to do. Only the language is different. You don't speak the language, so what you hear is foreign, and you can't understand it. If you can't understand it, you can't interpret it. If you can't interpret it, no feeling takes place.

 

Which isn't to say you're wrong at all. To the contrary. For you, these machines have no soul or feeling. Well, they don't have any soul for me either, but they have feeling in spades. On the other hand, organ doesn't do a thing for me - I appreciate the mechanics of it all, *especially* the rotary speaker. However, the music leaves me cold, it sounds like a time and a place and a way of thinking I can't identify with at all. I can barely play "mary had a little lamb" on an organ, but the ineffable is spoken through my drum machines.

[Cloacal-X]

Hmmm... traditional already exists and is a way too broad term without much meaning. If you really want defining lines i am sure that you can narrow it down a bit and basically separate instruments into two groups, namely: "Those that naturally produce sounds" and "those that artificially produce sounds". The simple definition then is: Any instrument that produces sound by moving parts physically exciting the air around it to create sound produces its sound in a natural way. That would in the end mean that every amplified instrument insofar as its unique timbre relies on amplification processes * is producing its sound artificially. In some senses "artificial" stands as the opposite of "real", so that i suggest that these definitions be used within the context of this topic. Artificial instruments (under the above definition) can be divided into two more types of instruments: Those that pick up the motion of physically moving parts and amplify them, and those that use only electricity to generate sound. I believe that those that use only electricity for sound generation are truly artificial, since they no longer have anything to do with naturally ocurring processes that generate sound. ----------------------- *Even though an electric guitar can produce sound "naturally" that is usually not the sound we associate with the term "electric guitar", but rather the specific sound the guitars physical and electric components create in conjunction with an amplifier - hence the wording "insofar as its sound relies on amplification" - which also means that i would class electric guitar amongst the "artificial" instruments. A classical guitar played through a huge PA would still be "natural" under this definition because the amplification is designed to only amplify, but not alter the naturally produced sound from the classical guitar. (Whether it succeeds is a different debate )

 

It seems like such a meaningless distinction to me. Who cares if the string pushes air which resonates a body, or whether it distorts a magnetic field which moves electrons which control a current which excite a transducer which vibrates a speaker? It's all just a bunch of man-made stuff pushing air around (or more accurately, compressing air) to me.

[grumphh]

However even the roll of thunder has been proved to be the sound caused by an electric phenomenon - that is, it is an electronic sound. - Isao Tomita

Fookin' rubbish

Damned artists, can't get their scientific facts straight...

 

The tremendous heat that a lightning bolt generates forces the air around the lightning path to expand rapidly, thus creating waves in the air (i.e. sound).

It is still matter that is being moved, creating sound, even though the process generating the heat is electrical by nature

 

An electronic sound relies on the transfer of electrons between molecules/atoms (which yes, could theoretically be considered a transfer of matter) but i really think that if we want to reduce the discussion to this level, then we could just go with the saying that everything is energy anyway

[grumphh]

It seems like such a meaningless distinction to me. Who cares if the string pushes air which resonates a body, or whether it distorts a magnetic field which moves electrons which control a current which excite a transducer which vibrates a speaker? It's all just a bunch of man-made stuff pushing air around (or more accurately, compressing air) to me.

 

In that case, even banging a stick on a rock is an artificial sound - because you seem to distinguish only between man-made, and non man-made.

If that is the width of your world, congrats, you must already be in nirvana

[Tusks]

 

In pianos, violins, flutes and other instruments the determination of their musical scales and the methods of their resonance are made by the art of mankind, so their sounds are not intrinsically natural but mechanical. Compared to the traditional instruments with a history of many centuries, electric musical instruments have a history of only 50 years. In addition, their shapes are not yet established, so the player is apt to become disorientated.

 

 

I think Tomita's distinction of mechanical versus electrical (or electronic) is accurate and is less burdened by value judgements. That's a great quote. Thanks, monoboy.

 

Jerry

[pogo97]

Artificial (we don't play artificisers, why are we even talking about this word?) or synthetic are not the opposite of real. Unreal is the opposite of real. And Real is the wrong word to use to describe instruments that make noise entirely through mechanical means rather than through a mix of electrical/electronic/digital and mechanical means.

 

I propose that we call formally-real instruments "george instruments" and the formally-artificial instruments "wally instruments."

[grumphh]

 

I think Tomita's distinction of mechanical versus electrical (or electronic) is accurate and is less burdened by value judgements. That's a great quote. Thanks, monoboy. Jerry

It isn't - it is an artists view of natural phenomena, hampered severely by the fact that he (as does Cloacal X) assumes that you can only divide things up into man-made vs. non-man-made.

 

A very artistic, but also crude distinction that in the end means nothing because that makes all human sound creation equally artificial.

 

Yet i would contend that there is a difference between a classical guitar and a full blown Moog modular - and that it is not only a technological difference.

[pogo97]

the classical guitar weighs less?

[grumphh]

 

Artificial... ...why are we even talking about this word?

Because that is what it says in the thread title.

 

Of course, if you also want to base your definition of "artificial" on the assumption that human intervention creates artifice by default, and that this artifice cannot be classified at all, there is no reason to discuss anything further. We simply disagree.

 

I mean, what kind of meaningful exchange can i have with a person who equates a bone flute with a full blown digital workstation on the basis of "they were both created by man"?

[T-Bot]

Which ever way you want to define it, its all moot anyway. Its the music that flows through the air that we all listen to, feel, and perhaps fell in love with. That music I know for certian is real, whether it was created by an electronic device or a symphony orchestra.

 

People who suggest otherwise need to be quiet, and just listen.

[realtrance]

A violin is artificial. So is a log drum. They are both the results of human effort, or artifice, imposed on objects initially devoid of any sign of human agency.

 

In this way they are no different than synths.

 

I think -- as I pontificated in a different forum earlier today -- the key thing is merely that the performative aspect of synthesizer mastery is all too rarely engaged in.

 

The history of most music making is one of essentially translating the rhythms, dynamics, motions gestures and sounds of the human body (breath, cries, sighs, whispers, you name it) into other objects that either amplify or transform those gestures.

 

That's why they're called, "instruments." An instrument is something that extends the initial capabilities of the unadorned human form in some way, be it a microscope, a synth or a stick to poke your eye out.

 

The only thing that is potentially lacking as a result of the extensive range of performative and gestural opportunity on today's synthesizers is the player's own skill, mastery and committment to making that performative, gestural translation of her or his own body to the instrument's own. It is entirely possible with any synthesizer, it merely requires familiarity and practice, two things that are obviated by the rapid exchange of gear over time.

 

I'd say the more time a particular person has spent with a particular instrument, the more likely they are to get an expressive performance out of that instrument -- if they really have anything to express in the first place, of course.

 

And that last is the problem with 99.999999% of the would-be musicians in our time. They don't.

[Cloacal-X]

In that case, even banging a stick on a rock is an artificial sound - because you seem to distinguish only between man-made, and non man-made. If that is the width of your world, congrats, you must already be in nirvana

 

Actually, I never made that distinction either.*

 

 

Tell me why you think it's a meaningful distinction, whether a sound is generated with or without the aid of electricity.

 

*edit* More accurately, I never prescribed any value to that distinction. The discussion is about artificiality of synthesizers, and unless you'd like to discuss whether other creatures can exhibit artificiality, we'll assume it's a characteristic exclusively in the domain of man. I don't think the discussion is really about non-man made sounds at all.

[Cloacal-X]

 

It isn't - it is an artists view of natural phenomena, hampered severely by the fact that he (as does Cloacal X) assumes that you can only divide things up into man-made vs. non-man-made.

 

 

On what basis do you presume I make this assumption? I think you can divide things up a great many ways, in fact. I think it's just as important to know when to divide, and when to leave whole. You can slice a pie infinitely many times if you'd like, but the end result is the opposite of what you've set out to do, it's just undifferentiated mush.

 

I don't mean to be arrogant but quite honestly I don't think you have any idea what I'm even saying.

[SonicSuture]

I'd say the more time a particular person has spent with a particular instrument, the more likely they are to get an expressive performance out of that instrument -- if they really have anything to express in the first place, of course. And that last is the problem with 99.999999% of the would-be musicians in our time. They don't.

 

Nice post. Just look at all the myspace bands... 90% are bands-in-a-box cutting and pasting lifeless samples. I believe one needs to thoroughly understand the relationships and patterns that make music so you can take what's in your head and heart, and transform it into soundwaves.

 

You can't be a great poet without mastering the language.

[mildbill]

apparently, RT beat me to it.

[tucktronix]

 

Drum machines no different than organs. They do what you tell them to do. Only the language is different. You don't speak the language, so what you hear is foreign, and you can't understand it. If you can't understand it, you can't interpret it. If you can't interpret it, no feeling takes place. Which isn't to say you're wrong at all. To the contrary. For you, these machines have no soul or feeling. Well, they don't have any soul for me either, but they have feeling in spades. On the other hand, organ doesn't do a thing for me - I appreciate the mechanics of it all, *especially* the rotary speaker. However, the music leaves me cold, it sounds like a time and a place and a way of thinking I can't identify with at all. I can barely play "mary had a little lamb" on an organ, but the ineffable is spoken through my drum machines.

 

 

You're missing my point...

 

My comment had NOTHING to do with machines in general, but everything to do with how their being used. Heck, I play synths, I use a drum machine. But in my mind, they're just tools. An organ, just like a piano, just like a synth, is a mechanical instrument that begs something of the player. An organ is just an organ. But it's truly something special when the likes of a Jimmy Smith is plodding on it. The same with George Duke on a synth. It's the soul you put into it. This is where sequenced, repeated arpeggios, however sophisticated, fall short IMO.

[tucktronix]

 

Moon's Premiers and Bonham's Ludwigs had no soul or feeling of their own. A synth's artificiality means nothing in the hands of an artist. A synth or drum machine should be used as a tool , not a replacement for a musician. Musicians make music, not their machines.

 

 

That is exactly what I was implying. It was a reaction to the comment that was made about fear "because the arpeggiator or drum computer does the job flawlessly." That was the term "no soul or feeling" was applied to.

[Cloacal-X]

 

That is exactly what I was implying. It was a reaction to the comment that was made about fear "because the arpeggiator or drum computer does the job flawlessly." That was the term "no soul or feeling" was applied to.

 

 

But that's the whole point. I mean, if you get drum machines, cool. But I view the rigidity of the clock on a sequence or arpeggiator or drum computer as just another aspect of the instrument, it's something you can use. That "flawlessness" (which I don't really think of as being flawless, but it's a semantic point) is not soulless or lacking in feeling at all..at least not to me.

[tucktronix]

 

But that's the whole point. I mean, if you get drum machines, cool. But I view the rigidity of the clock on a sequence or arpeggiator or drum computer as just another aspect of the instrument, it's something you can use. That "flawlessness" (which I don't really think of as being flawless, but it's a semantic point) is not soulless or lacking in feeling at all..at least not to me.

 

 

I guess we're both from different worlds... It seems that we view or interpret soul and feeling differently, perhaps:idk:

 

In my world, there is no soul and feeling in rigid sequences, period. A robot has no soul and cannot feel, and it's the same with robotic music. Soul is something contagious, imperfect. There is nothing scientific about it. I play keyboards for a few bands, and soulfulness is at the very center of what I do. Whenever I play on stage, there is a certain connection to the audience. They react to the notes, chords and how they're being played. They feel what I play. To me, that is soul.