@ braincell
blimey... why don't you just let them have their fun and sit back comfortably in your smugly superior and futuristic, forward-thinking methods?
Haemorrhoids playing up today or something?
MMT-8
Re: worthless
[quote="braincell"]This product is the result of someone who wanted to make some music software but has a total lack of imagination like 99% of all the software developers. If you like it, Alesis should get the credit not someone who rips them off. This is a worthless piece of crap and I can not imagine why anyone would buy it. If you want to play sequenced music live (by the way it is very exciting to watch people push buttons on a stage), then Ableton would be the obvious choice.
So Creamware has a total lack of imagination whats minimax,B2003,Profit-5 are they all rip offs or have they a total lack of imagination I dont think so developers have taken old hardware into the next plane of existance a studio the size of red square can now fit in a small computer. Rip offs or someone imporving on old tested ideas?
So Creamware has a total lack of imagination whats minimax,B2003,Profit-5 are they all rip offs or have they a total lack of imagination I dont think so developers have taken old hardware into the next plane of existance a studio the size of red square can now fit in a small computer. Rip offs or someone imporving on old tested ideas?
Re: worthless
YES! They get an A for sound quality and an F for imagination. It has to sound good it doesn't have to function in an identical way, they even look the same for gods sake. WTF is that??? That is just stupid if you ask me.
So Creamware has a total lack of imagination whats minimax,B2003,Profit-5 are they all rip offs or have they a total lack of imagination I dont think so developers have taken old hardware into the next plane of existance a studio the size of red square can now fit in a small computer. Rip offs or someone imporving on old tested ideas?[/quote]
So Creamware has a total lack of imagination whats minimax,B2003,Profit-5 are they all rip offs or have they a total lack of imagination I dont think so developers have taken old hardware into the next plane of existance a studio the size of red square can now fit in a small computer. Rip offs or someone imporving on old tested ideas?[/quote]
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
I agree with braincell in terms of synth design tho.. (going off the original topic) Emulators are only cool up to a certain point.
Like this sequencer... it may be disappearing, so there's a reason to be creating virtual copies of it. But once the virtual world is teeming with copies, some better than the other.. then its' saturated again. You don't need to keep making new copies of it under the rational that it's going away, and that you need to make copies so you don't "lose" it.
What will be interesting though, is to take older devices, once there are 5000 emulators out there that are never good enough for those who actually own one, and take the "essence" out. Take the essential characteristics out, and build something new with it. Move on. Take the good concepts, and get on with life. I mean, granted we end up with alteast one emulation that's fairly good and accessible, and a couple of originals in good condition for historical purposes.
All in all though, this whole virtualization thing brings up an interesting perspective in synth / hardware design. It's sort of like the MVC model of programming. The interface (buttons/keys and other forms of user input) may affect the user in a certain way, the sound generation mechanics may affect the user in a certain way, and the way information is presented (2 row dotmatrix, or 640*480 touch screen) can affect the user in a certain way.
By keeping all these consistent with the orignal, we can hope to preserve the experience from the orignal (sans the tactile/haptic feedback, which is always crucial) But it's interesting to experiment with different combinations, ones that weren't possible before. Controling a prophet via a mouse maybe one, but other things. Like what if all the parameter values were presented in a different visual style (in contrast to knobs), what if you stuffed a prophet into an electribe style interface? What if you could buy a physical controller surface that had 3 generic ADSR moog knobs sets, and maybe a couple more lfo and such.. Would the big knobs inherently make you want to twist it and tweak the hell out of your VSTis?
I don't think instrument designing is limited to creatin ground breaking, rocket science oscilator technology that no can afford. Creating new tools that create new sounds is once thing, but creating new tools that give rise to new mind sets, thinking patterns, and consequently, new music, is equally important. Creating exact copies is only the first step, and I don't think it's a good thing to become obsessed with it.
But back to the idea of emulating a sequencer.. I still think it's a first attempt of its kind, and may open up a world of new emulations. With things like this, it's not whether this specific emulation works, or is useful or whatever. I think it's the concept and idea that counts. Also, being the first to do something, counts too.
Like this sequencer... it may be disappearing, so there's a reason to be creating virtual copies of it. But once the virtual world is teeming with copies, some better than the other.. then its' saturated again. You don't need to keep making new copies of it under the rational that it's going away, and that you need to make copies so you don't "lose" it.
What will be interesting though, is to take older devices, once there are 5000 emulators out there that are never good enough for those who actually own one, and take the "essence" out. Take the essential characteristics out, and build something new with it. Move on. Take the good concepts, and get on with life. I mean, granted we end up with alteast one emulation that's fairly good and accessible, and a couple of originals in good condition for historical purposes.
All in all though, this whole virtualization thing brings up an interesting perspective in synth / hardware design. It's sort of like the MVC model of programming. The interface (buttons/keys and other forms of user input) may affect the user in a certain way, the sound generation mechanics may affect the user in a certain way, and the way information is presented (2 row dotmatrix, or 640*480 touch screen) can affect the user in a certain way.
By keeping all these consistent with the orignal, we can hope to preserve the experience from the orignal (sans the tactile/haptic feedback, which is always crucial) But it's interesting to experiment with different combinations, ones that weren't possible before. Controling a prophet via a mouse maybe one, but other things. Like what if all the parameter values were presented in a different visual style (in contrast to knobs), what if you stuffed a prophet into an electribe style interface? What if you could buy a physical controller surface that had 3 generic ADSR moog knobs sets, and maybe a couple more lfo and such.. Would the big knobs inherently make you want to twist it and tweak the hell out of your VSTis?
I don't think instrument designing is limited to creatin ground breaking, rocket science oscilator technology that no can afford. Creating new tools that create new sounds is once thing, but creating new tools that give rise to new mind sets, thinking patterns, and consequently, new music, is equally important. Creating exact copies is only the first step, and I don't think it's a good thing to become obsessed with it.
But back to the idea of emulating a sequencer.. I still think it's a first attempt of its kind, and may open up a world of new emulations. With things like this, it's not whether this specific emulation works, or is useful or whatever. I think it's the concept and idea that counts. Also, being the first to do something, counts too.
What I would say is that I constantly hear a lot of whining about this kind of thing - basically moaning that all available tools/paradigms are ancient and won't allow creation of 'new music'.
However the stuff I hear from these kind of peeps is pretty dull and nerdy - stupid Max MSP patches making ugly blips and bloops, soulless glitch music and so on. I mean look at this :
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/10/3 ... -pikachus/
This is supposed to be 'new and exciting' ? Um, no thanks. I'd rather watch someone with a Prophet 5 who actually has some musical ideas.
IMHO it's really up to the musician to do whatever they can with whatever tools are available. There's nothing wrong with finding a new tool and using it to create good music, or with finding a new way of using an existing tool and using it to create good music. I find that generally the people capable of doing this well are busy doing it, rather than whining about shit they don't have, or shit that no-one has got around to inventing yet.
However the stuff I hear from these kind of peeps is pretty dull and nerdy - stupid Max MSP patches making ugly blips and bloops, soulless glitch music and so on. I mean look at this :
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/10/3 ... -pikachus/
This is supposed to be 'new and exciting' ? Um, no thanks. I'd rather watch someone with a Prophet 5 who actually has some musical ideas.
IMHO it's really up to the musician to do whatever they can with whatever tools are available. There's nothing wrong with finding a new tool and using it to create good music, or with finding a new way of using an existing tool and using it to create good music. I find that generally the people capable of doing this well are busy doing it, rather than whining about shit they don't have, or shit that no-one has got around to inventing yet.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
oh c'mon braincell, don't take that turn.
The world of max/msp and other so called "forward thinking" platforms and genre makes me frown alot. I thought I had something to offer that side of the world, hence my involvement with max/msp, and going on to my master's degree... well, that side of the world is full of bogus, I hopped right out as you may know.
It's ironic that those who use max/msp say that they like max/msp because of it offers complete audio freedom, or some other blurb that reads well in text.. and then as darkrezin put it, end up with blips and beeps and samples mangled beyond belief with crazy convolution parameters.. Which is exactly the easiest thing to do in max/msp. Max/msp is a blank canvas, and offers a huge selection of tools. The user needs to be so specific in what he wants, and even the minute mistake, or misunderstanding of an algorithm/concept results in chaos. In other words, they've fallen prey to max/msp's biggest limitation. Complete freedom.
Older instruments had inherent limitations which may or may not be good in modern days when there are more options. But these limitations also saved users from the chaos of freedom that new technology brings. These instruments / devices are good to learn to think with limitations, not just so that you can think creatively undert constraints, but also to learn the relationship between your own thoughts, and the limitations causing them. I think with new technology, especially ones susceptible to chaos like max/msp, it's important for the users maintain the self discipiline and concentration learned from the older instruments, in order to create something logical in the free space.
In the end, I don't think it matters. The more crap you have stuffed in your tools, the more you can use as an excuse to yourself and others. Like some everyday situations:
"I need to get a super reverb because my music lacks space" (dude, it's not the reverb, it's because everything's panned dead center!)
"I need to get a better moogue emulator because this one gets burried in the mix" (dude, half the world's population lives in your mid low range. Clear it up!)
"Maybe I should switch sequencers because I head that one's got better MIDI editing capabilities" (dude, you might want to learn basic harmony first)
"oh, it's a new plug in. I just gave it a test run" (eek, I say that alot myself)
But if you're real to yourself, and know what you're doing without lying to yourself, the the more crap the merrier! I mean, we all have to acknowledge the fact that we do have to move on.
The world of max/msp and other so called "forward thinking" platforms and genre makes me frown alot. I thought I had something to offer that side of the world, hence my involvement with max/msp, and going on to my master's degree... well, that side of the world is full of bogus, I hopped right out as you may know.
It's ironic that those who use max/msp say that they like max/msp because of it offers complete audio freedom, or some other blurb that reads well in text.. and then as darkrezin put it, end up with blips and beeps and samples mangled beyond belief with crazy convolution parameters.. Which is exactly the easiest thing to do in max/msp. Max/msp is a blank canvas, and offers a huge selection of tools. The user needs to be so specific in what he wants, and even the minute mistake, or misunderstanding of an algorithm/concept results in chaos. In other words, they've fallen prey to max/msp's biggest limitation. Complete freedom.
Older instruments had inherent limitations which may or may not be good in modern days when there are more options. But these limitations also saved users from the chaos of freedom that new technology brings. These instruments / devices are good to learn to think with limitations, not just so that you can think creatively undert constraints, but also to learn the relationship between your own thoughts, and the limitations causing them. I think with new technology, especially ones susceptible to chaos like max/msp, it's important for the users maintain the self discipiline and concentration learned from the older instruments, in order to create something logical in the free space.
In the end, I don't think it matters. The more crap you have stuffed in your tools, the more you can use as an excuse to yourself and others. Like some everyday situations:
"I need to get a super reverb because my music lacks space" (dude, it's not the reverb, it's because everything's panned dead center!)
"I need to get a better moogue emulator because this one gets burried in the mix" (dude, half the world's population lives in your mid low range. Clear it up!)
"Maybe I should switch sequencers because I head that one's got better MIDI editing capabilities" (dude, you might want to learn basic harmony first)
"oh, it's a new plug in. I just gave it a test run" (eek, I say that alot myself)
But if you're real to yourself, and know what you're doing without lying to yourself, the the more crap the merrier! I mean, we all have to acknowledge the fact that we do have to move on.
-
UsedManateeSalesman
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:00 pm
not to ressurect a dead thread but...
the bitching and moaning about lack of creativity in this thread a) misses the point and b) belies clearly that you've never used an MMT-8.
Sorry my comments were too blunt.
It just doesn't seem to have a purpose as it is. Maybe for someone who can't afford a good program? It reminds me of of the Apple Shuffle when people said it is so great that it doesn't have an LED or extra buttons because the simplicity makes it easy to use. It doesn't take long to figure out how to use a couple extra buttons and we know how to navigate folders. I don't think less is better when it comes to technology. The slogan for this sequencer should be "At last a MIDI sequencer your grandma can use".
Show me something that does something that no other software or hardware can do and I may try it.
It just doesn't seem to have a purpose as it is. Maybe for someone who can't afford a good program? It reminds me of of the Apple Shuffle when people said it is so great that it doesn't have an LED or extra buttons because the simplicity makes it easy to use. It doesn't take long to figure out how to use a couple extra buttons and we know how to navigate folders. I don't think less is better when it comes to technology. The slogan for this sequencer should be "At last a MIDI sequencer your grandma can use".
Show me something that does something that no other software or hardware can do and I may try it.
Re: worthless
[/quote]braincell wrote:YES! They get an A for sound quality and an F for imagination. It has to sound good it doesn't have to function in an identical way, they even look the same for gods sake. WTF is that??? That is just stupid if you ask me.
So Creamware has a total lack of imagination whats minimax,B2003,Profit-5 are they all rip offs or have they a total lack of imagination I dont think so developers have taken old hardware into the next plane of existance a studio the size of red square can now fit in a small computer. Rip offs or someone imporving on old tested ideas?
Let's not forget they invented Scope...back in the days when they first came out with it people considered them visionaries....tell me another company who makes sound cards with more imagination.
