my two cents on the origin story

[Roger_Linn]

Thanks for the kind invitation but my suggestion was said in jest. That said, it’s an interesting topic and I’ve enjoyed reading the comments.

I don’t know if Randy will be at SB, but it’s easy to ask him using any address on his site.

[SteveElbows]

I like to influence LFOs using MPE controllers (eg LFO depth and speed) and there are things I can do with LFOs that I'm not going to achieve with pure gestures, eg ones that require oscillations beyond a certain speed, or more complex shapes. And when playing more than a few notes at once, I still stand a chance of creating plenty of variety in modulation for each note by influencing LFO per voice via different pressure for each finger, in ways I wouldnt be able to manage if the actual modulation itself was being done by my fingers.

[SteveElbows]

Speaking of history, I would like to briefly touch on another period much later than the examples discussed earlier. I have no personal experience with this era of electronic instruments since I was only 4 at the time, but I was watching an old BBC program from 1979 on youtube this evening, and up popped David Vorhaus and his Kaleidophon! It's at about the 9 minutes and 5 seconds stage of this video and I think its certainly worth watching that bit if you are interested in the history of expressive electronic music controllers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJHtcWLhrX4

And the I found this Sound on Sound article about him from 2002, which includes the following quote.

I believe that the range of available electronic sounds is potentially as expressive as anything achievable from a traditional instrument, but what's missing is the means to control it effectively.

Other stuff in the article that he says about keyboard controllers fits in quite well with one of Rogers themes.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/david-vorhaus

[Roger_Linn]

Thanks, Steve. I wasn’t of David Vorhaus or his instrument.

[funktree]

* ADSRs were merely stop-gap solutions to make on/off switches less..well..on/off. With expressive control, you can shape each note's envelope in performance. For sharp attack / long-decay sounds, a resonator or physical model of a string will naturally decay at a slow rate that naturally adjusts to loudness and pitch, eliminating the need for a fixed decay envelope. Or perhaps expressive control calls for replacing ADSR with a rise/fall accelerate/slew modifier, in which expressive increases in pressure can be sped up (for sharper attacks) or slowed down, and expressive decreases in pressure can be slowed down for long delays. But you still have expressive control.

This is where I need to add my .2 cents. Yes I've tried to simulate envelope with pressure (Z) but without channel poly on most of the synths this is impossible. I make two modulations on a few sounds:
velocity -> Filter attack (negative)
velocity -> Filter Decay (negative)
the harder I press the faster the “ADSR” react. hmmm not soo good. (here is where custom Z curves would come handy to adjust to both my hands & synth limitations but Roger disagree) The other option is that I need to practice my pinky for a few years to utilize LS as I read in other threads ...hmmm... I bought LS JUST to do the opposite. My fingers are not too strong and I miss some more customization for “my hands” I bet a few people would agree.

Yes I spent 200+ hours with LS and my playing improved radically but I do miss the "4th dimensions of touch” for MY hands. Where LS knows behind scene which finger is used for a pad... That is why we have these powerful chips that could do some “limited AI” to decide on things. I’ve been in custom guitar shops where the guitar manufacturer listens to your responses on frets, neck thickness, shape etc. I KNOW LS does not come from a custom shop. But again the technology of 21st century gives us the extra power we need to do this ... what do you think ?

So my .2 cents feature: I would welcome a “W” dimension (4th) CC messages. CC that would generate value based on a difference between pressure and velocity. But I’m not sure how fast the “Z” is scanned right now. It could be that Z and Velocity at the time of hitting the pad generates the same value.

So here is how it would work. If I land my finger on a pad a note is not really generated b/c there is not enough pressure (didn’t reach the threshold). However the “Z” could already “sense" a change. This would generate very slow attacks and would kill any fast attack ADSR etc. Perhaps I’m not expressing this properly. But second option would be to look at few 3-6 scans of the “Z” and based on the curve of those 6 scans I would send various CC to better imitate slow/fast attack changes. You can call it “Super Pressure”

On the same note of the channel aftertouch ... I really have hard time to use “Z” with any synth that cannot do MPE or poly aftertouch. For example I hold the “bass” note with certain pressure (Z=88) then I want to gently play some lead with other hand... BANGGGGG that new pad sends z=10 and what ever the “Z” controls (FM/cutoff etc) makes a abrupt change in sound. I know Roger told me to use one of 3 settings or split the layout (not soo easy on 128 version) ... yes it helps a bit. ...but .. so ... ARGH ... NO playing cheap synths with LS... full-stop!

The above “feature” would help with this. If the LS scans how fast the “Z” changes in 3-6 scans ... this could be used to “Gently” change the CC for channel aftertouch machines so CC for Z would not have jumpy changes.

It’s almost like that I’m missing a post-processor for scanned values. A processor that could dynamically decide on things like “absolute vs relative Y” do better pitch band with faster attacks (usually a percussive sound Cuckoo shows this feature on Continuum ) The more fingers hit at the same time the more I would force PitchBand to be closed to 0.... sky is the limit

[Roger_Linn]

(here is where custom Z curves would come handy to adjust to both my hands & synth limitations but Roger disagree)

LinnStrument has 3 curves for both velocity and pressure -- Low, Medium and High. And the Touch Sensor Prescale setting provides continuous control of overall sensitivity. There is no way to enter complex response curves into an instrument without a display. Trying to implement such a feature on an 8 x 25 (or 16) light matrix would be too coarse to be useful. If you want to try editing LinnStrument's velocity or pressure response curves, you are welcome to edit the source code.

Could it be that your synth's sound isn't responding to pressure as you'd like? If you want higher sensitivity, why don't you simply increase the Touch Sensor Prescale value?

I do miss the "4th dimensions of touch” for MY hands. Where LS knows behind scene which finger is used for a pad... That is why we have these powerful chips that could do some “limited AI” to decide on things. I’ve been in custom guitar shops where the guitar manufacturer listens to your responses on frets, neck thickness, shape etc. I KNOW LS does not come from a custom shop. But again the technology of 21st century gives us the extra power we need to do this ... what do you think ?

I think it is not possible, but you are welcome to suggest an algorithm for detecting the little finger in a matrix keyboard with overlapping hands. I would not implement such a feature, nor would I put in an AI chip and complex software for one person's individual need, but you are welcome to implement it in an external software application.

So my .2 cents feature: I would welcome a “W” dimension (4th) CC messages. CC that would generate value based on a difference between pressure and velocity. But I’m not sure how fast the “Z” is scanned right now. It could be that Z and Velocity at the time of hitting the pad generates the same value.

So here is how it would work. If I land my finger on a pad a note is not really generated b/c there is not enough pressure (didn’t reach the threshold). However the “Z” could already “sense" a change. This would generate very slow attacks and would kill any fast attack ADSR etc. Perhaps I’m not expressing this properly. But second option would be to look at few 3-6 scans of the “Z” and based on the curve of those 6 scans I would send various CC to better imitate slow/fast attack changes. You can call it “Super Pressure”

Is anyone interested in implementing such a feature in the source code that would satisfy funktree's unique and individual need?

On the same note of the channel aftertouch ... I really have hard time to use “Z” with any synth that cannot do MPE or poly aftertouch. For example I hold the “bass” note with certain pressure (Z=88) then I want to gently play some lead with other hand... BANGGGGG that new pad sends z=10 and what ever the “Z” controls (FM/cutoff etc) makes a abrupt change in sound. I know Roger told me to use one of 3 settings or split the layout (not soo easy on 128 version) ... yes it helps a bit. ...but .. so ... ARGH ... NO playing cheap synths with LS... full-stop!

If you're on mac, may I recommend a cheap synth? It is Apple's MainStage and costs only $30, and includes software instruments for nearly every type of synthesis, as well as sampling with a large sample library. And all the synths are not only responsive to Poly Pressure on one channel but MPE compatible.

Another solution to the problem you describe would be to use split keyboard.

[jsterne]

Wow. I don’t visit this discussion board because I’ve got my Linnstrument set up as I like and am just making music with it, and an interesting philosophical discussion pops up!

The one thing missing from this discussion is expectations. From an engineering point of view, we can argue that an ADSR or LFO is a poor substitute for human movement (but let’s not forget the LFOs that modulate delays and reverbs!).

But from a musical standpoint, there is tons of music, and many classic sounds, that are predicated on switches, sequencers, static envelopes, and the like. They may not be to the taste of people in this thread (IDK) but there is a whole wonderful world of electronic music built exactly around these limitations. Even acoustic or acoustic-electric instruments: generations of engineers have added compression to pianos to effectively reduce them to on off switches with modulated timbres. Guitar distortion deliberately reduces dynamic range and increases sustain.

And here is where I am going to disagree with Roger on a fundamental question: I don’t think the instrument designer’s job is to remove limits from performers, but rather to set up a system of opportunity and constraint that inspires creativity (the academic fashion now is to talk about “affordances” but I have soured on that term). I can think of very few musical examples I actually enjoy where less constraint would have benefitted the music, or where if I didn’t enjoy it, it was because there were too many constraints (exception: bad live sound).

Playing octave runs on a bass line on the Linnstrument is a different motion than on piano or on electric bass. That produces a different result. I’ve got another song where I am locked in with the drummer playing a sparse line that has two eighth notes on a low root, and the 7th in a rapid descent over 3 octaves. You couldn’t do that with one hand on a piano without moving (maybe someone can, but not me), and on bass, you’d need 5 strings and a long stretch to pull it off (or on a 4 string, tune the bottom string to the root—I do that all the time). It’s easy on guitar, of course. But you’ll never get those low notes. Those are opportunities and constraints. I’m not about to fire my guitarist for another Linnstrumentalist (<—or is there a better word?).

JS

PS — On the practice part, I’ll also add that one area where I have failed utterly is to reproduce Geert’s demo of using just aftertouch to produce a synth envelope with my hands and nothing else on an analog synth. Would love to, but it just doesn’t work with current hardware and my current hands. This is one thing about the LS specs: it’s easy to get hung up on MPE or using the Y axis or whatever, but I think the most important part of the Linnstrument is its totality. Technical (and here I mean engineering, not musical) virtuosity can be a distraction from making music. I have had great fun with it and monosynths, and also using it in situations where MPE isn’t possible or musically necessary.

[BobDog]

PS — On the practice part, I’ll also add that one area where I have failed utterly is to reproduce Geert’s demo of using just aftertouch to produce a synth envelope with my hands and nothing else on an analog synth.

The good thing is that this is highly dependent on the Synth, I also had never got this working satisfactory with any software or hardware I tried.

Then I got a ContinuMini to get hold of the internal EagenMatrix synth to use with the Linnstrument and it works amazingly well.

[Roger_Linn]

Hi jserne--

Good points, all. My original point was intended to provoke discussion, but I do see merits in ADSRs, LFOs, oscillators, etc.

I agree about constraints in instrument design. With LinnStrument, I realized early on that such a versatile instrument would inspire people to want it to be a thousand different ideal personal instruments. But trying to follow that path would make a confusing and conflicted musical instrument, plus I couldn't afford to create such complex software. So I chose to focus on expressive musical performance while putting in lots of MIDI hooks and opening the source code so that anyone can do whatever they wish.

[mbsq]

But from a musical standpoint, there is tons of music, and many classic sounds, that are predicated on switches, sequencers, static envelopes, and the like. They may not be to the taste of people in this thread (IDK) but there is a whole wonderful world of electronic music built exactly around these limitations. Even acoustic or acoustic-electric instruments: generations of engineers have added compression to pianos to effectively reduce them to on off switches with modulated timbres. Guitar distortion deliberately reduces dynamic range and increases sustain.

Are you saying that dynamics are just not that important? This seems like a "pop music" viewpoint that I don't agree with.

[jsterne]

I'm saying dynamics are not at all important for some music audiences and some famous recordings.

The sociological point is not everybody has the same musical aesthetics. The normative point is we ought to acknowledge that people listen to different kinds of music and respect that it's made with different norms about instruments and sound.

That's how history works: people grew up listening to certain kinds of music recorded to tape, and when engineers "solved" the problems of tape, musicians and audiences missed the sound, so now there are a gazillion plugins to simulate the sound of tape. Ditto vinyl. If you take away gates and envelopes, someone will reintroduce them to achieve a musical effect they once heard and do something cool and creative with it.

My ideal instrumentarium adds new instruments and obsoletes none.

And: it would be a shame to dismiss someone's creative ideas as not musically valid simply because they work in a different genre from you. (Though honestly, when I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking more Morton Subotnick than New Order or Burial, but I'll take New Order or Burial.)

[mbsq]

I’m not saying we should get rid of any instruments or techniques. But I got into Linnstrument precisely because it is expressive, amplitude modulation included.

[John the Savage]

I'm saying dynamics are not at all important for some music audiences and some famous recordings.

I think we're confusing dynamics with expressivity here. Whether we're talking about purely electronic music, overly-compressed pop, or what have you; dynamics still play a huge role in the mix process and greatly affect the aesthetic of the final product, regardless of whether or not the individual elements within the mix are in-and-of themselves lifeless or void of expressivity.

In fact, because modern pop music is built using mostly static elements, which are typically quantized and pitch-corrected to death, we have to generate dynamics artificially instead, both within the context of each track and for the overall arc of the arrangement. It's a little sad, to be honest. It almost invariably sounds forced, and ultimately leads to what's known as "listening fatigue".

To be clear, I'm not knocking the attributes of an 808 kick on the dance floor, the LinnDrum beat driving a Prince song, or the clap track in that well-known Tom Petty hit (wink). It's undeniable that unrelenting electronic elements, especially when used rhythmically, can be mesmerizing and hypnotic and otherwise serve a song well (context depending of course). However, this ideal is always more effective when applied sparingly and in contrast to more expressive "human" elements. The bottom line is, if you were to truly squeeze all the dynamics, natural or otherwise, out of music entirely, it would be quite intolerable to listen to, no matter the genre or personal taste.

Cheers!

[mbsq]

An example comes to mind, and apologizes for the political incorrectness. Even in pop music, expressive dynamics can make the difference. What made Michael Jackson the King of Pop? One undeniable factor is that his singing was incredibly expressive. Many songs suffice to illustrate the point, but “Break of Dawn” is an great example where one can hear how his dynamical control in both volume and timbre, along with his perfect pitch, make something that stands out.

[jsterne]

I think this thread may have jumped the internet shark. It is true that I don't agree with Roger's intentionally provocative statement that MPE controllers obsolete switches, gates, LFOs, envelope generators and the rest. (But then, I'm not sure he really agrees with it.)

But I never asserted the opposite, which is that dynamics (that word was put in my mouth and I too easily accepted it) or expressiveness (also a term that I prefer not to use because it is pretty vague) NEVER matter. I simply stated the things those terms point to matter more and less (and in different ways) for different musics and different audiences. The Prince, MJ, 808 4-on-the-floor, and Tom Petty examples more or less confirm what I was saying--they don't contradict it.

But really, all I'm saying is if you get rid of envelope generators and gates, people will find musical reasons to bring them back. AND, I actually have found a lot of use for a Linnstrument in concert with envelope generators and gates.