BassTractor

Here's the electronic whiteboard. If you want to read more about it, the guy's called Iannis Xenakis, and the machine's called UPIC. Which reminds me of a kinda cool story: I want to become his pupil, and are allowed to visit him in his apartment. We sit down at the piano, and after a lot of talking and playing, he finally says: - "I accept you as my pupil..." My head is bubbling with excitement of course. Exactly at that point the door opens, and a young man enters. Xenakis undisturbedly continues: "...ah, there he is... ...and [b]this[/b] will be your teacher!" Not what I was envisioning! (Incidentally, I didn't get a grant, and, out of money, had to return home after less than two months - without having received any serious teaching.) [URL=http://s1170.photobucket.com/user/basstractor1/media/Xenakis%20-%20UPIC%20%20-%20%20500_zpsz3dx3jre.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r525/basstractor1/Xenakis%20-%20UPIC%20%20-%20%20500_zpsz3dx3jre.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1453306448' post='2958301'] I'd love to see photos please, if you can. [/quote] PhotoBucket is weird right now. Twice yesterday it took ages to upload before I got an error message about a failed upload. Today I find two copies of the same pic in my library. Anyway, here's the first. This one is on paper but meant for the computer IMS. Notice the time markings - that piece of paper is loooong! [URL=http://s1170.photobucket.com/user/basstractor1/media/Xenakis%20-%20Mycenae%20Alpha%20-%201978%20-%20excerpt_zps1x6wtaq0.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r525/basstractor1/Xenakis%20-%20Mycenae%20Alpha%20-%201978%20-%20excerpt_zps1x6wtaq0.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

You said the g*-word! You're welcome. I may have missed important aspects, so just ask if you want to know more.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1453314679' post='2958393'] Apologies if this has already been posted.... this is a fantastic tribute! [/quote] Great! I think he'd probably be moved by it. Twing Twang!

Ha! Memories of old days! Back in the Pleistocene I had several teachers who did stuff like that. I tried to upload pics, but PhotoBucket failed me. May try later. Anyway, we'd find ourselves on the floor studying scores that were several yards wide as well as deep, so you'd have to sit on them to read the top of the score the right way. One of my teachers found sort of a solution in drawing the score directly on an electronic whiteboard, and then the computer rather than a player would translate it into music. Not live though I think. IMS we had to make two drawings on the whiteboard, and after each drawing, the computer would have to analyse and store, before combining the data into one composition. Good times! . . ...that I don't want back.

It's a steal. Not perfec', mind, but a steal at £435. Great as a first synth, and great as an addition for the pros. Its competitors are either digital or a lot more expensive, so if its being analogue is important, then it's a steal. It is far from as deep as digital synths in the same price bracket though, so there's a trade-off here. Many people react negatively to the Korg slim keys. A Waldorf Blofeld Keyboard for example spawns a keybed of a different class, whilst Arturia and Novation do not. Unlike some other offerings on the market, all four voices always have two oscillators available, and all four voices have their own filter (the last part is a drawback for certain sounds, but generally a lot more lauded than criticised). It has the right amount of knobs and switches (29 and 14 IMS) to serve as a good introduction to subtractive synthesis, and also has some goodies under the hood that go beyond the first visual impression, as well as beyond bog standard subtractive synthesis. It has a sequencer built in.

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1453124134' post='2956532'] it may be best just to continue as I am and hoping that the skill develops naturally over time. [/quote] Yeah, that would be my guess for now. These guys who are better at it have surely spent the time getting to know all the "landscapes", as well as (important!) the different peculiarities and artefacts. When I hear people discuss how a sound is made, they'll often narrow it down using the sound's artefacts. That demands experience, I'd think. In general and roughly speaking, I think it's safe to say that the older the original sound, the easier it will be to replicate. New sounds would generally require the same type of hardware or software, if not the exact same. BTW, tools like Fourier analysis, spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes come in handy as well in many cases. . Stuff I was thinking of whilst preparing my posts, and I don't mean to unjustly treat you as a beginner - I just don't know what you know: - FM-synthesis performed on a modular subtractive is a wholly different ballgame than the same settings (using the term loosely here) in a digital FM synth. One either needs to understand well-written descriptions of the differences in sound (seems near impossible to me) or one needs the raw experience. - A wavetable waveform morphing into another wavetable waveform whilst being filtered through one of a gazillion different comb filters seems near impossible to recreate to me, unless you've heard exactly these combinations and know which synth can do it. - Even the synth in Van Halen's "Jump", a simple subtractive patch you replicate in minutes if you have an Oberheim, cannot be done on a Polymoog or a Prophet 5 (which would probably come closer), and even a synth plugin with good virtual analogue capacities would need to have the right type of filter to pull it off. So just listening to the sound is not enough - far from it. All the best with this! Have fun!

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1453123245' post='2956519'] If you scratch a bass it remains a musical instrument. If you refuse to play it, it becomes and expensive ornament. [/quote] Is there a worship smiley on this forum? Oh wait, KB detests smilies. LOL (that's shorthand for a yellow circle with three graphical elements inside it: two adjacent small vertical lines near its top and a rotated capital "D" near its bottom) In all seriousness, I'm really anal about this, but my reason commands my DNA to shut the Hull up. So I tend to use stuff as normal, and since they are new items that I'm not yet accustomed to, they tend to get an early ding before years of unharmed use.

[quote name='Machines' timestamp='1453118202' post='2956426'] No point in cutting off my nose to spite my face etc. [/quote] I get the impression you were mature and wise. If you enjoy it, you enjoy it. The little cheekiness probably was inspired by their not feeling at ease with the other guy, and often there's also dissent within a band as to whom to contact first. Also, you'll probably prove them wrong as to not choosing you first. Wouldn't be the first time a band soon exclaimed they're sooooo happy the other one pulled out. Have fun!

As a consequence of what BRX says, and I fully concur with it, you might be most happy with continuing the fluke and trial and error approach, but slightly differently: not for listening to a sound first and then trying to recreate it, but for taking one type of synth engine at a time and seeing what landscapes of sounds it tends to lead you to, and why/how. It all depends on your knowledge level too, as well as on how much time you want to set aside. From your OP, I can't guess what you should go for, but if you're a synth newbie you could do worse than by starting with a tiny subtractive synth with fixed architecture, and putting it through its paces. These can be had for free. Once one has a good overview over what the different modules of the synth do, one could try a real modular subtractive, as in one without fixed architecture, before diving into younger methods of synthesis. I'd avoid FM engines. I love them, mind, and they [b]can[/b] do what the Interwebz tend to claim they can't, but they do require a lot of dedication (time as well as a structural approach). Some more modern synthesis methods and combinations are far more effective tools for F&T&E. Oh, and don't forget external processing, if only for comparing. External processing often is at the core of what makes the final sound in a record attractive. For starters, I always keep a delay and a reverb handy. Also, sounds you hear on records also sometimes or often have taken days of tweaking and layering as BRX already indicated (my own record is eight work days for eight layers in a complicated patch (after which I said "never again!", and I have kept my word)), so replicating those is not a matter of five minutes with a tiny subtractive synth, though I do admit the whole thing takes considerably less time than becoming a good bass player.

I'm not a drummer. For me as a newbie with only a few hours of training, the single most important aspect seemed to be the response in the snare and toms. I've found other parameters like the sound module's possibilities and sound quality less important to me. As a result, I personally will invest in a set with mesh heads (don't know if that's a generic term) like the Roland TD-11KV rather than the cheaper TD-11K (which I much disliked), and might just go for the TD-15K (which has mesh as standard). A TD-11KV will set you back 1,000 quideros, hombre. What's your budget?

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1453034929' post='2955726'] I gave it three minutes but they were still playing the intro... [/quote] This is so the Deadheads get time to finetune their recording gear during gigs. Then maybe try this atypical one, Touch of Grey, from 1982 or so (and released in '87): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uby6jFCDjE[/media]

[quote name='Twincam' timestamp='1453034896' post='2955725'] Some give there meaning up easily. Some take a while to figure out. Others are not meant to be figured out. I'm still talking about lyrics, and not women btw haha. Music to me is like a little book with pretty tunes behind the words, giving the story texture and emotion. [/quote] Wow! I don't have a single clue about lyrics, and am only able to listen to the music - even when I try to write down the lyrics - but these lyrics must be some of the best poetry ever!

...and here was me thinking the Paramoron aurivillius became extinct on the 20th of July in 1928. But yeah, a Paramoron singulare, as can be expected. Only one, evidently (I mean, it's in the name 'n' all, and science should know), and happily, Paramoron only dig through wood as larvae, so I'm not too afraid for the well-being of the wooden keys in my piano. I'm relieved. These Paramoron singulare adolescents are some feisty keyboard warriors when there are several of them! Oh... wait! This ain't the Bad Jokes thread! ...or is it?

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1452985569' post='2955396'] Not unless you have a corresponding oxydoxy, no. [/quote] Blast a dam! Can't find one. So thazzit then? I'm ou'?

Well, I did find a paramoron hiding in my sofa. Does that help?

Must admit I lolled out silently at that last exchange of philosophical ideas.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452962174' post='2955145'] known as "Rise and Fall"? [/quote] Yes, it was. I asked the MD who came with my medicines. She should know.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452953507' post='2955015'] Hm, what about the albums colloquial two-word titles - "Ziggy Stardust" and "Scary Monsters" - which are rather good but whose correct titles are somewhat longer? And is "Pin-ups" one word or two? This recipe seems fraught with hazards... (And why didn't Bowie just make all of his albums great by giving them two-word titles?) [/quote] [quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452956534' post='2955059'] I'd have to say that an exception to this rule would be "Stage", which is a superb album, but maybe live albums don't count. [/quote] Fraught with hazards? I couldn't imagine why! Of course, instead, it's fraught with security, as we can now safely adopt the human capacity of [b][i]flexibility[/i][/b]. E.G.: - "Ziggy Stardust", as you can see clearly, when counted correctly, is 12 words. Bad album. - "Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)", as evidenced here (parentheses fer cryin' out loud!), is two words. Good album. - "Pin Ups" may of course seem like one word to most people, but actually it depends on whether you like the album or not. Also, the flexible human brain may in case of doubt elect to adopt the stance that as a covers album it doesn't count. - "Stage" can simply be added to the Low Lodger Heroes line if live albums may indeed count. See? The recipe always works!

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452949371' post='2954962'] It's rubbish, you should have gone for Station to Station, Low, Heroes or Lodger...... [/quote] In the early eighties, just after "Let Us Dance" (sic!) was released, I received the following simple recipe from a Bowie aficionado: If the title of a David Bowie album is not "Low", "Heroes" or "Lodger", then it is rubbish unless the title consists of two (2) words, in which case it is great, except when those two words are "David" and "Bowie", as evidenced on a whopping two (2) early albums. Worked for me back then, but in all seriousness I'd have to revisit to check if it still holds for me. BTW, for young readers: "Space Oddity" = "David Bowie".

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1452790218' post='2953556'] It Be a Troubled Login..? [/quote] I didn't want to be a part of prolonging this thread, seeing as the OP seems to feel it's personal and that we are prolonging his sufferings by making fun of him personally, rather than what we're really doing, which is trying to find half-original ways of prolonging a thread without having anything important to say, but in ways that might be construed as... er... I'm gonna say it... no, I'm not.... yes, I am.. slightly half-original and vaguely reminding of vaguely funny (I tried to wiggle in the word "prolonging" here, but failed - maybe a Brit could help out here), but I couldn't persevere, and just HAD to say the following in response to Rich's contribution[b]:[/b] " ". So I'll do just that[b]:[/b]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1452879036' post='2954418'] Well you should have done ot properly in the first place, shouldn't you Arthur Daley! [/quote] I'm appalled at the name-and-shame culture here on BC, with all the wild accusations without evidence. The very least you could've done was to make this person anonymous, or even use a generic name... like say... er... George Cole or something.

[quote name='jacko' timestamp='1452853145' post='2954044'] Sounds a bit like 'An evening of YES music plus' [/quote] I'm in AWR of that one. (for young readers: Anderson, Wakeman & Rabin have confirmed their new trio.)

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1452869506' post='2954295'] I couldn't possibly recommend the Maplin synth unless you are (or know) a very good and experienced electronics engineer with access to all the appropriate tools including a decent oscilloscope. [/quote] Yup. The Maplin especially, but the EML and the original Odyssey are likewise not first and foremost investments but rather objects that require investments.

Becoming album-oriented already as a young boy in the mid sixties, I must have thousands of blind spots. I was aware of these artist's existence though, as they were all named in the music mags I would read. Examples: Cream, Eric Clapton, The Byrds, The Rolling Stones (though I did eventually hear Brown Sugar), Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, David Bowie (until Warszawa happened on tv), Frank Zappa until '79 (because he reportedly wrote difficult music, so I feared him - not realising that at the same time, I listened to experimental classical music on a daily basis) and loads of others. I didn't listen a lot to the radio, but something that did not help either was that most radio presenters would introduce the next song, then play that song and then afterwards not tell what song just had been played, so even if my ears had opened up because something exciting was on the radio, I'd often not find out what it was without a lot of investigation. Except: some of the music mags were very good at describing some new music and its roots. Based on those articles, I could fairly often guess which artist probably was the one I'd just heard. But I've still missed many well-known artists. That said, with a 6,000 album collection spanning most types of music, I've probably heard more music than the people who know the most well-known artists from the popularity lists, so it's not really as if I've been missing out on something. Also, I'd often know more about the styles people liked than they themselves did, even if I hadn't heard the most popular artist within that style. IOW it's all about life situation, reference frame, perspective, goals, etc. etc. . BTW, me, I quite like not being called uninformed or ignorant just because I don't know some three chord wonder. [/grumpy]