23 Aug
2012
23 Aug
'12
9:57 p.m.
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 19:33 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:07:31PM -0400, David
Robillard wrote:
Fair enough. See below.
Since a monophonic synth is so severely limiting
anyway, I make no claim
about being a faithful emulation of wires and capacitors and such. If
analog was sufficient, I wouldn't be spending such a ridiculous amount
of time writing software :)
Clearly we have different backgrounds. Straying from the technical
into the artistic domain is a good way to end this thread, so... All the synth music I really love happens to be made
using monophonic
instruments. Things like Zawinul's solo 52 seconds into 'A remark you
made' <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWvSr2g4U34>.
Once synths became polyphonic they mostly turned from a instrument
in its own right into something just used to imitate other instruments.
I'm working on a SW modular synth that at least in its first version
will be strictly monophonic, precisely to emphasize it's meant to be
an instrument on it own, and not a cheap replacement for anything else.
I don't really think polyphony is at all related to this. No shortage
of 'flute' and 'brass' attempts on monophonic synths.
Aesthetically, though, I actually agree, perhaps with an even stronger
version: I am not particularly interested in any attempts to make
computers pretend to be acoustic instruments at all (e.g. samplers of
the gig school). All you do is suck the soul out of it and turn the
machine(s) into, as you say, a cheap replacement.
Anyway, since I have failed to get an opinion out of you one way or the
other, and you wish to end this thread, I will assume the thing to do is
just fork the plugins and change their interface appropriately to be
more sensible outside of AMS with no regard to backwards compatibility.
They are currently attributed entirely to you, and "fomp" is a cute
quasi-acronym for "Fons' Modular Plugins". I can change this if you do
not wish to be associated with them whatsoever.
Cheers,
-dr