# Modern Classical/Avantgarde vs Electronic Music.



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I've always wondered what the appeal is of certain "modern classical" or avantgarde music when the main focus of _some_ of that music seems to be sound, texture and atmosphere.

I know there are 20th century composers who have made use of electronica, but still it seems to me that some modern composers are desperately holding on to traditional, accoustic, classical instruments to create 'expirimental' music. Why not make use of the one instrument that is far more suitable and capable to make just that: The Synthesizer.
The possibilities of the synthesizer are endless. There are also great possibilities for performing live and different ways of controlling and manipulating sound (not just by keyboard and knobs). It can be made as expressive as anything. It does need a lot of learning and understanding of hardware and software.

So, in some cases I would definitely say: stop (ab)using traditional instruments and start exploring electronica. It could result in more interesting and more beautiful sounding music.
It is foolish not to take the synthesizer for a serious instrument. It is the ultimate instrument.

This is just my perspective as a big enthusiast of electronic/ambient music, next to classical music.

What do you think?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

The synthesizer is not the ultimate instrument. There are simply texture, acousitques, and timbres you cannot get out of one that you could get out of other instruments. I think it would be fine if they used one, but it would be self-limiting, in my opinion, if that is all they used. I'm a big enthusiast of various electronic music and especially ambient, but not all ambient is even made with synthesizers. Most of my favorites are made with acoustic instruments.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd have to agree with Cnote. Synthesizers are _part_ of new composition, but I wouldn't want them to be the only instrument. There are many ways to manipulate sound, and many sounds can't be matched electronically. Edgard Varese was a great pioneer and manipulator of electronics, but he still managed to produce something very compelling using just a solo flute.

Having said that, if you wanted to devote your life to composing for synthesizer, I'm sure with that instrument you could produce a lifetime of works and never run out of ideas.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There are many sounds that synthesizers are used for as facsimile for an instrumental timbre - if you've surveyed enough, you already know to some extent the incredible range and array of sounds which can be got from the various acoustic instruments.

Some sounds, timbres, or a certain long sustain can only be produced by a synthesizer.

It should be considered 'one more instrument' to add to the palette, no more no less. I hate when a synth is substituting for something a real instrument can do, it seems less than necessary or legitimate.

Too, from the early generator / oscillators to the moog, to later advances, the instrument is changing so fast that a composer is looking at very possible obscurity for having that instrument, and the particular sound it generated, available in a live performance of a work a mere five or ten years hence. I'd gamble on the entire string section still being there, that particular model synth, and its particular generated sound, not!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dear lord, I can't imagine the beautiful orchestral colors and textures of Toru Takemitsu or Wolfgang Rhim being reproduced by a synth


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

In my opinion there is an endless amount of things to do with acoustic instruments. The synthesiser is an amazing contraption, but I think that there are a lot of composers out there who are happy making music with traditional acoustic instruments.

I think what the synthesiser can do is quite incredible, but I've never thought of any instrument being the "ultimate instrument." Maybe one of the reasons that some composers are still using acoustic instruments is to make the piece more accessible to the performer. As you said, it does definitely need a lot learning and understanding of the hardware and software in order to compose and perform music on the synthesiser and this might be a reason why composers are still composing for more common instruments with a wider repertoire.

As I am an amateur composer, I usually compose my "experiemental" music for acoustic instruments which would mean that it would be easier to get my music performed, but I do want to one day be able to write music for the synthesiser and possibly use _with_ acoustic instruments as well.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

There is more to synthesizers than just the timbre. The actual rhythmical and acoustic possibilities of electronic intstruments open up new paths that acoustic instruments don't allow. Perfect intonation down to fractions of cents across the full range of human hearing is possible. Exacting rhythms played at speeds no human could imitate.

So more than it just being the synth, it is the use of computers to not only aid in composition but be integral to it that really excite me about electronic music. Then the act of manipulating the computers to create the exact sounds the musician wants becomes the true measure of skill.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> As I am an amateur composer, I usually compose my "experiemental" music for acoustic instruments which would mean that it would be easier to get my music performed, but I do want to one day be able to write music for the synthesiser and possibly use _with_ acoustic instruments as well.


The composer-performer-audience relationship is abridged by the synth/computer to a composer-audience relationship. If I had more knowledge of how to truly use computers to their full potential rather than my current slightly educated trial-and-error technique, I'd be quite happy to make music solely using synths. Creating for acoustic instruments requires a marriage of knowledge and virtuosity, whereas creating for electronics is more a meeting of knowledge, time and effort (and money to afford the high-end gear).


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

All forms of sound production and indeed all sounds are equal as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> All forms of sound production and indeed all sounds are equal as far as I'm concerned.


I agree entirely.


----------



## Mesa (Mar 2, 2012)

I am a synth player and enthusiast, and i assure you, the overwhelming majority of synth sounds we hear on records are a magnificently small section of what's possible. There's a familiar 'set' of 'synthy' sounds that are, for most music fans and producers alike, the 'sounds a synth makes'.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Mesa said:


> I am a synth player and enthusiast, and i assure you, the overwhelming majority of synth sounds we hear on records are a magnificently small section of what's possible. There's a familiar 'set' of 'synthy' sounds that are, for most music fans and producers alike, the 'sounds a synth makes'.


What synth/s do you have?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

It would be nice if there was at least more of a mixture between accoustic and electronic instruments. Imagine an ensemble where half the people play accoustic instruments and the other half use electronic instruments. 

As great as some electronic artists/synthesists can be, they are often solo artists or small groups working on studio music. And if there are live performances, they are still premade for a large part.

It would be really interesting if classically-trained/oriented composers and musicians alike would embrace the synthesizer. Using synthesizers as live instruments in larger groups is something I've not seen. There are also electronic violins, flutes, drums... one person could play the instrument, the other manipulate its sound, etc. 
Maybe it would sound like crap in the beginning. All I'm saying is, there is a lot of unexplored potential.


----------



## Mesa (Mar 2, 2012)

No analog synths yet 
Korg M1R, X3 and Prophecy, Yamaha FB-01 (The same sound chip as the megadrive, near enough), Alesis Micron, Novation Xio.

Scrimping and saving for a Juno 106 or an MFB at the moment.

And DeepR, you heard of Jordan Rudess? Virtuoso keyboard dude that plays keys for Dream Theater now and then.





The typical modern synth is really quite expressive as a performing instrument, aside from velocity-sensitive keys, one could have 2 pedals assigned to near enough anything, aftertouch, pitch bend and mod wheels etc. The tools are there but so many people lack imagination.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Argus said:


> The composer-performer-audience relationship is abridged by the synth/computer to a composer-audience relationship. If I had more knowledge of how to truly use computers to their full potential rather than my current slightly educated trial-and-error technique, I'd be quite happy to make music solely using synths. Creating for acoustic instruments requires a marriage of knowledge and virtuosity, whereas creating for electronics is more a meeting of knowledge, time and effort (and money to afford the high-end gear).


Live performance, if it is at all a consideration here (I think it should be) leaves a very dull picture of a man or woman clicking a mouse or touching a screen or two... Dull, Dull, Dull. Better then straight to recorded medium, because 'there is nothing to watch.'


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Mesa said:


> No analog synths yet
> Korg M1R, X3 and Prophecy, Yamaha FB-01 (The same sound chip as the megadrive, near enough), Alesis Micron, Novation Xio.
> 
> Scrimping and saving for a Juno 106 or an MFB at the moment.


Cool synth collection.

I'd love a Juno 106 or a Korg MS-20 but I think going analogue is a bit too expensive a road to take for me at the minute.

What's your take on softsynths, and do you use any?



PetrB said:


> Live performance, if it is at all a consideration here (I think it should be) leaves a very dull picture of a man or woman clicking a mouse or touching a screen or two... Dull, Dull, Dull. Better then straight to recorded medium, because 'there is nothing to watch.'


That's where light shows and backing dancers come in handy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Here is one work with wholly integrated use of orchestra and electronics, each 'instrument' doing what they do well, and working well together. 'Just another part of the orchestra,' which is my preferred use when with instruments, vs. using it as a 'substitute' for anything....
That leads to 'equal' treatment,' thinking 'equal treatment' is what leads to this very 'natural sounding' integration....

Harvey- Madonna of Winter and Spring


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Argus said:


> Cool synth collection.
> 
> I'd love a Juno 106 or a Korg MS-20 but I think going analogue is a bit too expensive a road to take for me at the minute.
> 
> ...


"That's where light shows and backing dancers come in handy."


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Whatever the song writer thinks is best for their sound is what they should do.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

What do you people here think of Milton Babbitt? He has written a large quantity of music for synthesiser that I quite like.


----------

