Re: Intuitive EA Proformance Practice Research

Subject: Re: Intuitive EA Proformance Practice Research
From: Morgan Sutherland (
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 20:26:59 EDT

Yeah, i think i agree. Although a pianist doesn't MIND that there
isn't feedback, I think this happens to be one of the downfalls of the
piano, lack of timbre control. Therefore I think it would be
extremeley important to try to build an instrument that has the kind
of pitch control of a piano, yet the timbre control of the violin
(which is very limited in comparison because you can't neccessarily
play chords etc.)

This brings up an idea. Perhaps a keyboard with "forced feedback".
This would require lots of small motors however... or rubber bands.

On 10/13/05, Rick <> wrote:
> On 10/13/05, Richard Wentk <> wrote:
> > At 18:33 13/10/2005, you wrote:
> > I don't think this is true because there examples that contradict it - e.g.
> > a guitar synthesizer [...]no one seems to mind
> > that there's no longer a relationship between physical string pitch and
> > performed pitch, or that the sound that's being made is nothing like a
> > guitar and doesn't respond in the same kind of way.
> >
> Oh yeah, that was it.
> There Is a relationship between physical string pitch and performed
> pitch. The feedback loop is continuous. Yes there are long-learned
> perfomance techniques, but that's not (primarily) what we're talking
> about now.
> Once the parameters have been set up for, let's say, a guitart
> controller (we won't talk about MIDI because it's 8bit and there's no
> point anymore, its just an mass production artifact) but a controller
> with some decent voltage control outputs and good AD conversion. The
> string is still directly tied to the signal (unless it's been decided
> to program the controlled device to do otherwise) The ears are tied to
> the sound and to the hands.
> > At that point you're no longer
> > playing the violin in a physical sense, you're playing the sound with
> > pedals and other modifiers that offer little or no tactile feedback at all.
> Not true.The modifiers may alter the signal, but they do it in a
> relatively direct way (if for no other reasn, than maybe to keep the
> lagtime to 0), In a sense no more different than differently shaped
> body or a different material string/body/plectra alters the sound of a
> guitar. When youplay an electric guitar, you sometimes hear it refered
> to as a "rig". You often play the physical EA space between the amp
> and guitar when trying to control feedback and overdrive/distortion,
> but you're still entirely immersed in the ear/body/sound/instrument
> feedback system.
> There's still that piano thing, but it's a percussion device really.
> And it seems to me tht there's still a very direct physical
> relationship to the sounds' outcome. Yes, it lacks forced feedback. so
> that's a deadend for the rest of my argument. But i'm still right and
> everyone else is wrong. I would add some sort of smileyface thingy
> here, but there have been complaints lodged and I'm not sure of the
> ironic smile.
> R
> Pianos only really have velocity as an articulation feature, but to
> > make up for it the sound is unusally rich and complex.
> >
> > In fact there seems to be a trade-off in instrument design where simpler
> > sounding instruments tend to be built with more articulation, and those
> > with more complex timbres offer less.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> --
> ======================
> Rick Nance
> De Montfort University
> Leicester, UK

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST