You could say the same of every new instrument ever. Why use a piano when a harpsichord is so much simpler to build? (Louder, mostly, but that's not my point. And pianos were much more expensive than any previous instrument when they were new.) Why build a harpsichord if you have stringed instruments? Why put strings on an instrument...why not just bang on that stick.
New instruments provide new means of expression not previously available. That alone is reason enough to keep experimenting and building new instruments, even if most of them never go anywhere or see anything resembling widespread adoption. They expand the palette of possibilities.
If you find a full keyboard strapped to a synthesizer more conducive to what you want to express today, that's fine. There are still guitars, and drums, and harpsichords, and pianos, and analog synthesizers. This doesn't close off those options to anyone, it only opens new doors.
Cost, or being "better" than some other option in some dimension, is not the reason for something like this. New means of expression is the reason, and it is reason enough.
Erm... The piano allowed dynamic volume; a serious improvement over the harpsichord.
I hate to pick at your example, 'cause I agree with you in spirit. Your harpsichord/piano example was just... Well, exactly my point. The piano was a major improvement over the harpsi; I hope the same will be said of Overtone. That's all.
I don't think live coding makes live music more accessible to dabblers. Making live music that people enjoy listening to only takes a few dozen to a few hundred hours of instruction and practice, with either voice or instruments, and beyond the obvious a capella modalities, there's the harmonica, the borrowed friend's guitar, the recorder, the pan pipes, and so on, which together mean you can make pretty excellent music without spending much or any money. And it'll take you quite a lot of practice to outgrow a US$100 synth from Radio Shack. (Or wherever you buy them these days.)
By contrast, I have the impression that livecoding requires a great deal more knowledge to do in an entertaining way, and it can go wrong in many more ways.
Ha! A $100 synth from RadioShack is precisely what I use. It even has "RadioShack" engraved into it.
Honestly I was just trying to find some good things to say about Overtone, since creativity is always a great thing and should be encouraged.
Maybe a combination of the two ideas: Overtone functions being invoked by pressing keys on a synth, with pressure/speed of the keypress being passed as function args. (But then I suppose Overtone would be "just another synth generator"... I don't know.)
Comments
Mm, I didn't mean to come off as a dick. Overtone is cool as hell, and is worthy of a lot of respect.
My point was, there's a reason why musicians often use "a box with a bigass row of large physical keys" to do this sort of thing.
That said, a synth costs thousands of dollars; so I love the idea of Overtone making live music more accessible to "dabblers" like me.
( Unfortunately, a MacBook also costs thousands of dollars, and I've given up hoping people still care about Windows. =) )
You could say the same of every new instrument ever. Why use a piano when a harpsichord is so much simpler to build? (Louder, mostly, but that's not my point. And pianos were much more expensive than any previous instrument when they were new.) Why build a harpsichord if you have stringed instruments? Why put strings on an instrument...why not just bang on that stick.
New instruments provide new means of expression not previously available. That alone is reason enough to keep experimenting and building new instruments, even if most of them never go anywhere or see anything resembling widespread adoption. They expand the palette of possibilities.
If you find a full keyboard strapped to a synthesizer more conducive to what you want to express today, that's fine. There are still guitars, and drums, and harpsichords, and pianos, and analog synthesizers. This doesn't close off those options to anyone, it only opens new doors.
Cost, or being "better" than some other option in some dimension, is not the reason for something like this. New means of expression is the reason, and it is reason enough.
Erm... The piano allowed dynamic volume; a serious improvement over the harpsichord.
I hate to pick at your example, 'cause I agree with you in spirit. Your harpsichord/piano example was just... Well, exactly my point. The piano was a major improvement over the harpsi; I hope the same will be said of Overtone. That's all.
I don't think live coding makes live music more accessible to dabblers. Making live music that people enjoy listening to only takes a few dozen to a few hundred hours of instruction and practice, with either voice or instruments, and beyond the obvious a capella modalities, there's the harmonica, the borrowed friend's guitar, the recorder, the pan pipes, and so on, which together mean you can make pretty excellent music without spending much or any money. And it'll take you quite a lot of practice to outgrow a US$100 synth from Radio Shack. (Or wherever you buy them these days.)
By contrast, I have the impression that livecoding requires a great deal more knowledge to do in an entertaining way, and it can go wrong in many more ways.
Ha! A $100 synth from RadioShack is precisely what I use. It even has "RadioShack" engraved into it.
Honestly I was just trying to find some good things to say about Overtone, since creativity is always a great thing and should be encouraged.
Maybe a combination of the two ideas: Overtone functions being invoked by pressing keys on a synth, with pressure/speed of the keypress being passed as function args. (But then I suppose Overtone would be "just another synth generator"... I don't know.)
The possibilities of algorithmic music are different from the possibilities of direct human performance.