Cut Me Off A Line Of That, Please...
From the original Analog Industries archive. Some links and images from that era no longer resolve.
It looks like Jonathan Heppner, the creator of AudioGL, has finally made a beta available; $80 for a full license, and there’s a save-disabled version to try out, if you want to give it a whirl. (32-bit Win only, requires a pretty robust PC with OpenGL 2.0 support.) Worked fine on my system. I took that screenshot myself, but it’s worth noting that my PC is so blown-out overpowered that I’m not a terribly good test case for such things. Don’t let the look of it scare you; at its base level, it is more-or-less a boxes-and-wires synthesizer that we’re all familiar with, that happens to have a very sophisticated sequencer, and you can, if you so desire, look at things in a perspective mode for some visual interest. No plug-in support, as yet. Peter Kirn did a full write-up with all the deets at CDM, so I won’t bore you with the technicalities.
What I really want to talk about is how this shoehorns in to my latest flight of fancy. What I like about this app is that Jonathan has, for the most part, ignored the standard conventions that the music tech industry relies on. (COMMANDMENT ONE: THALL SHALT MAKE ALL COMPRESSORS LOOK LIKE A BEAT-UP 1176! ETC.) Instead, he’s just made it look cool and logical.
There are two opposing points of view to this methodology. For those against it, the general vibe seems to be that music software should look like the music hardware it clones, because the interface is familiar, and musicians are stupid and can’t be bothered to figure out even the most simple departures from this method. The second, and the one I personally follow, needs some explanation.
I find it ironic that musicians are so conservative in their use of technology, when their lifestyle choices are anything but. Of the 10 most popular DAWs, 8 follow the “tape deck and mixing console” paradigm, even though the vast majority of the people that use those DAWs have never set foot in a commercial recording facility, nor have they seen an analog multi-track tape machine in real life. Ask a guitar player what his pinnacle rig is, and dollars to donuts he won’t say a Parker Fly Artist and a Kemper Modeling Amp (which is a demonstrably high-quality, playable, great-sounding, versatile combination.) He’ll say a ’57 Strat (sigh) and a vintage Marshall Plexi (deep, shuddering sigh.) Want to see an electronic musician jump around like a monkey on coke? Put him in the same room with a MemoryMoog, ARP 2600, or Prophet 5. Recording engineers? Fairchild, Neve. Fairchild, Neve. Fairchild, Neve. EMT! kktnxbai.
Of course, those things are all popular wishes because they sound “good,” for various values of good. Although I’ve heard plenty of shitty records recorded on Neve consoles to analog tape, that have MemoryMoogs and Strat/Plexi guitars tracked through Fairchild comps, with EMT plate reverb. There are, no doubt, tens of thousands of suck-ass records that use those very pieces of gear.
My opinion on the matter is that when you are first presented with a piece of software, if that software’s user interface follows some real-world gear, you concentrate on the things it can’t do, or the reasons it doesn’t sound like the “real thing.” If, on the other hand, it is unique to the software, you spend your time figuring out what it can do, while you learn how to use it. Sure, the learning curve is a bit steeper; the only thing you have to figure out on an 1176 plug-in clone is how the developers implemented the “all buttons in” mode. But look at it this way: one day, way back in the mists of time, some engineer opened a box and in it was a brand new 1176, a product he’d never seen before, and didn’t know how to use. He put it in his rack, and some time later he just, for the fuck of it, decided to see what it sounded like when he pushed in all four ratio buttons.
Nobody has made that discovery with an 1176 plug-in.
26 comments
"Ask a guitar player what his pinnacle rig is, and dollars to donuts he won't say a Parker Fly Artist and a Kemper Modeling Amp (which is a demonstrably high-quality, playable, great-sounding, versatile combination.)"
*chuckles*
Parkers ARE awesome btw...
Yeah, one of the reasons I've never been sold on the Arturia analog clones is that they go to great lengths to duplicate the user interface quirks of the machines they emulate. They could have so easily made a logical UI for them, but because of the conventional wisdom about What Users Want, they didn't.
Face it, for reasons of design weirdness, implementation cheapness, and a callous disregard for end users, nearly all vintage gear has something really fucked up in its UI. Faithfully reproducing every last iota of WTF of a 'classic' allows a new generation of users get to be frustrated and baffled.
I'd rather be baffled by something that's baffling on it's own terms, as opposed to something that's baffling because an engineer in 1981 did something goofy to save 25 cents on switches.
Plugins that look like a piece of hardware but don't sound like it really make me crazy. You'd think I'd have gotten over it in the last 10-15 years, and I have somewhat. A little. If it doesn't sound A LOT like an 1176 then what's the freakin' point of making it look like one? And yes, I spend too much time noticing how wrong it is instead of what it does good.
The Parker though? Shudder... Feels like a Guitar Hero controller, looks like a cheap PRS knockoff, sounds like it's made of hollow plastic.
bb
Yeah, that guitar that doesn't stay in tune at all (and heaven forbid you hit the whammy bar), has a sticky neck, buzzes like a motherfucker, and weighs a ton. Oh, shit, that's right. I'm talking about a vintage Strat. My bad.
Seriously, though, that last comment is exactly what I'm talking about. I have absolutely no interest in getting in a religious debate about guitars on this site. I could honestly give two shits, and that's one more shit than the rest of these keyboard players give. I'll just say that of the three things you said about the Parker Fly Artist, one is a subjective opinion, and the other two are demonstrably false.
But then again, a Triton LE is a better piece of equipment than a CS-80 in almost any way you'd possibly care to name, except maybe as a boat anchor, but that won't stop someone from dropping $15K on one of those things every few months. That's how musicians do.
-CR
I like fast workflows, and not too many bells and whitsles. Don't care how it looks otherwise. I like vintage looking plugins because they're generally easy to use (see LA-2A) and I like modern looking plugins that are easy to use (see Fabfilter Pro-DS). I suppose this is all for a few reasons:
1. I get to feel all pro and manly when I'm using an 1176 that looks like the real deal - and it's easy to figure out
2. I get to feel all cool and hip when I use something with an awesome modern UI that looks great on the screen
3. But most of all: I'm inherently lazy and just can't be bothered to open a manual. If I can't figure out how it works without looking at it (or watching a YouTube demo), then I'm never going to bother learning it. I'd rather use that time doing something productive like learning piano, practicing sight reading, writing a song, cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, etc.
Moral of the story: I don't think I'm alone in saying that I prefer things that are simple and hard to screw up. Look at Fluid, Liquid, Dubstation, Ratshack...not a lot of controls, hard not to get the sound I want out of them. Meanwhile, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with something like Automaton (it looks like a video game) or this AudioGL thing.
Chris, you've touched on something that hasn't been discussed yet in the whole skeuomorphic debate: Familiarity isn't always a good thing.
We're making tools that are (hopefully) being used for creative purposes. If the GUI is unfamiliar enough at first glance to slow someone down, that may not all that bad. By slowing down, the user may be forced to look at things from a different angle, and step outside of their existing world view - or at least their world view with regards to compressors, EQs, reverbs, etc.
@bongo it's funny you say that the Parker sounds like plastic and that's why you don't like them. I was listening to a track recently on which they used a Parker and my thought was that it sounded like weird plastic. However, contrary to your opinion I thought it was one of the coolest, most unique guitar tones I had ever heard. It's not my dream guitar, but I would love to have one.
Greek: skeuos - vessel or tool.
That's an interesting sort of gender-ish "or."
Never mind me. I'm the guy (tool) in the back of the class that should probably be in whatever today's equivalent of special ed is, or at least, reading the remedial blog.
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out what CR sold from what he still has, and I was good at algebra.
CR: Aren't you doing kind of a 180 from last year's "limit yourself" epistemological context?
So what does "all buttons in" mode sound like?
Care to model it?
:-)
-A
-ZombieStomper
I'd probably agree with you if I heard that sound. Or lie and say I did.
Every sound is useful for something; there's no guitar, amp, keyboard, or digeridoo in the world that isn't capable of making a really cool sound that's just right for the right track. It's just a question of how many times you're going to want that sound and do you need to own a digeridoo or just rent one if the need should arise?
bb
Some gear really IS just...bad.
Plenty of musicians go right after the gear their favorite artists had, so they can get exactly the same sounds...and then make mediocre copies of the music they love. Nothing wrong with that, but why bother?
Personally, I also would rather find my own personal set of gear that works well. I'd rather sound like ME than exactly like ____.
And I will also generally say instruments today are much better than instruments from many years ago.
There ARE some really great old guitars. But there are also a lot of really great NEW guitars, too.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic about the vintage analog keyboard guys if they all weren't just playing detuned saws with the filter wide open all the time, or making the same 5 sounds over and over.
I dunno...Strat will sound fine on most occasions (though I'm a Tele fan...), Parker will excell in some but will be wrong choice for majority of them. IMO.
Same with bass guitars... Jazz or P most of the time...
Old-fashioned I guess :)
k
I wonder what coders would do if their IDEs forced them to work on a simulated IBM 129 Card Data Recorder?
So I get to be the guy who makes the minor correction. I think Chris meant "EMT plate." For what it's worth, the true recording geek goes nuts for a recording engineer who's competent. Competent = George Massenburg or equivalent.
I find the conservatism of musicians to be oppressive: then again, I play a Parker Fly Classic.
Anything that improves the usability of a device is a good thing. If we applied the hide-bound interface paradigm of recording technology to automobiles(which are obviously also fairly traditional in terms of design), we would still be using a hand-crank to start and would be double-clutching to change gears(I've done that too, and it's not worth the nostalgia).
Cheers,
Alan Tomlinson
When did the threshold for competent become hard-working genius?
I was just thinking about GM with Night Passage playing in my head before I came here. Now I'm hearing EWF's Phenix Horns and wishing I had my own 8200.
I'd better go watch some more TV. I walked by CNN in progress on the way in here, and they were showing a QVC host that had passed out live on-air, with a caption about the co-host continuing to sell. I need to go catch that in slomo while I can still rewind the DVR.
@coyoteous I agree that gm is perhaps the best engineer out there. That said, since there are so very many poseurs extant, I think that it would be good if people made an effort to understand that engineering, properly done, is for the most part dying out and that the qualitative difference between what is possible and what is accepted as passable by the majority is immense.
Most of the people who call themselves engineers, I would trust to change the trash can liners at a studio and no further.
Cheers,
Alan Tomlinson
I remember all the crap that Gibson got for trying to do something with the guitar recently (robot, piezo pickups, various tones)... Guys would go onto Gibson's website and claim that these guitars were crap without actually playing one. Fact is, they are great guitars, although not perfect. Outputting each string separately on 6 separate tracks, panning them and using ITB Line 6 plugins and other effects on each string independently... wow.. what a sound... even with an ITB guitar plugin!
Overall... I think each of us has a journey through the gear world and we eventually find what works for us. It's about being creative and productive and it's ultimately all about the music.
I think the music tools we make (instruments, plugins, mixers, whatever) are more than tools, they're meant to inspire people, and different people need different inspiration. Some people need the inspiration to actual work to make their drum track sound good because "it has an 1176 on it". On the other hand some people draw inspiration from a new interface like Automaton or like AudioGL, which can only be a good thing.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how every instrument is a synthesizer connected to a user interface of some sort. But really, that makes anything that makes a sound and that you can touch an instrument. A good instrument is just an expressive synthesizer connected to an elegant user interface. But for an expressive instrument to become popular people need to be able to play it, so the user interface changes are almost always evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The Eigenharp for instance seems very elegant and expressive, but I'm not going to spend the next several years mastering and I assume most people feel the same way.
I think that hardware looking plug-in UI's are similar. They kind of say, it's ok to make music on your computer, it looks the same and you already know what all the knobs do. Obviously in 2012 we don't have to convince people of that anymore, and we are seeing and will hopefully continue to see more UI's that fit the context of a screen better.
Speaking of CNN, there will be no guy jumping out of space from a balloon today because of wind.
Does it seem like we're going backwards, sword fighting on Revolution or in an alternate "what if the Axis powers won WWII?" universe since Shuttle was retired?
Regarding alternative controllers: a friend of mine commented that all hope for any progress in that area was abandoned when Jaron Lanier's last Mattel glove broke.
every time i saw someone using a one of those midi glove things live i had completely involuntary laugh/snicker regardless of what was happening.
And furthermore,
"Cool" "Vintage" instrument from 1986: http://www.vintagesynth.com/emu/sp12.php
"Uncool" "Old" instrument from 1986: http://www.vintagesynth.com/roland/d50.php
Basically, I call bullshit. "Cool" and "vintage" are essentially what people like me say are cool and vintage. In other words, they're subjective, as noisegeek says. Not quantifiable fact.
-CR
Indeed, though I find some coolness in the D50. Wasn't it kind of the first rompler? Maybe Korg was in there first. What I find most disturbing is having lived through decades whose gear can now be considered vintage. I do have a special place in my heart for the DX7. I got my Minimoog for $150 from a guy who had just bought a DX7, when they first came out. Subsequently, I was buying a lot of analog for about the same nickel on a dollar. I still have a lot, but that was also my bank for lean times.
I also find the whole bass, tenor, alto, soprano (expand even lower and higher) instrument phenomenon interesting. Of course, we're all familiar with bass, cello, viola, violin, or voices, saxophones, etc. But, what about those old pictures of hundred strong ukulele, banjo, whatever horn, etc. players in uniforms, sometimes with instruments ranging from gigantic to tiny, yet all the same type? I sometimes think I'd like to hear some of that music, but not enough to try to search any of it out, if it even exists.
I do have decent bass, alto and soprano flutes, and a piccolo (no jokes, please). I'd still like to get an E-flat melody flute, or whatever they call it, for covering alto sax, albeit an octave higher. Oh, and my high school band director owned and played a double-belled euphonium. I think it was a baritone (conical bore) and and rolled-up valve trombone (cylindrical bore) all in one. It had an extra valve to switch from one bell to the other. He and I thought that was cool, but I don't think anyone else did. Lastly, I have a CD of the Terem Quartet with a guy that plays a giant bass bouzouki:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=farBRjM28Zw
I'd just like to make one more point on this subject, then I'll let it rest: the worst, most annoying touring drummer I ever had, who never met a bar that didn't need a cymbal splash, and overplayed like a motherfucker, played a vintage Gretsch silver sparkle kit. The best touring drummer I ever had played (initially) a Pearl Export kit.
The most annoying, least reliable, most tedious touring guitar player who ever shared a stage with me played a Les Paul Studio through a Marshall Plexi full stack. The best, most easy-to-work-with, guaranteed to pick up his parts on the 1st try, sober on stage, perfect accompanist guitar player who shared a stage with me was Reeves Gabrels, playing a Parker Fly with no amp at all, GK2A to VG-8.
It's not what particular vintage instrument you play. It's who you are. Sometimes, what you play is a reflection of who you are. More often, it's how you play it, not what you play.
-CR
I grew up in Hong Kong. There were a lot of banker/lawyer/doctor sons with Gretsch/Rogers/Slingerland etc. drums.
My drum teacher was a Sri Lankan dude who literally floated to Hong Kong on a rubber tire (some of the way:-)
He played played a Pearl Export.... and sounded better than anyone I knew
The Eurorack world is interesting, in that the traditional aspect (analogue, modules, jacks and wires) remains intact, but lots of the modules are highly novel and don't fall into easily identifiable categories (LFO, VCA) and I can't figure out what some of them are meant to do (and nobody seems to be able to explain, either). So on the progress vs. nostalgia point, I'd say Eurorack was ahead of the curve - which the exception (as has been mentioned) of the music.
I have wanted a modular for 10+ years, but can't bring myself to start building one. I have spend many hours on muffwiggler, and there is just a staggering lack of what I would class as music being made with these things.
Sure, there are exceptions. stretta has it nailed - but I'm not stretta, and I can't do what he does.
I once watched Carl Palmer play a whole gig in front of a giant gong, which he hit exactly once, and only after someone fluffed it for him because you can't, in fact, just bang a gong without warming it up first. And the auditorium cheered when he hit that gong.
I remember thinking Definitely Not Cool because I, being the offspring of thrifty farmer types, was thinking about the resources necessary to transport a giant gong internationally for the purpose of striking it precisely once per concert. (Plus, I like gongs and felt shortchanged.) But I later came to appreciate the PT Barnum reality in which carting a giant gong around to strike it only once per concert is exactly the point.
As an aside, Kiss still win on the PT Barnum scale, because they can play in that makeup until they're 98, or die and let someone else inherit the costume like in Lucha libre. Brilliant in retrospect - they're the only 70s rock stars who still look like they did in the 70s, as long as you don't get close enough to smell the zombie breath.
Comments are closed on this post.