|
In-depth Feature:
Synthesis - Whats Next?
|
|
|
Time for something a bit different says Mark Tinley
|
Page
1
2
3
4
of 4
NEXT
conceptual model of an audio synthesiser
Many of my contemporaries remark that I write like a technical author, too literal perhaps, not enough humour. And though a lot that follows sounds technical I promise that it's not. I actually feel that technical issues are the problem and could be the very reason that we are all standing around at trade fairs muttering "this is so boring".
I put it to you that the foundation for electronic music is fundamentally flawed and needs a rethink so that we can move on. The absence of humour in my writing style might help a bit too. A document written in such a style may be the bridge between the technocratic mind of a synthesiser designer and the imaginary World of music. Perhaps I am someone who shares a language with both parties and can act as an interpreter.
Maybe it's not all about phon, µbars and anechoic chambers at all... Maybe sound can't be harnessed by thinking about it in that way and we have missed something important.
In chemistry the definition of synthesis is "taking elements and fusing them together to create a compound". In music perhaps it could be defined as "the production of complex sound by reaction from simpler parameters".
But what should these parameters be? Frequency, amplitude, time? You see, by using these parameters audio synthesis has come a long way, or has it?
Page
1
2
3
4
of 4
NEXT
|
