Kalea

well, I think it depends on a person. my friend was never ever able to learn playing the piano (but for the easiest tunes), but has a genius for playing the guitar (luckily his parents didn't insist on the piano when he was 6 and he started playing the guitar in his teens).

This is interesting and all, but it's not that it's the only such precedent in history. Can't help but mention Franz Liszt who stopped playing when Nicholas I of Russia started talking with his adjutants. (Needless to say, he became a persona non grata in Saint-Petersburg since then! :nod:)

I'd like to give it a try but it doesn't look like it's out already or something... However, overall I'm more or less fascinated with an idea of generative music, and here is another nice example:

More or less what makes wobbly bass is an automated LFO which is tempo-synced. This far, envelopes, filters and LFOs are integral part of most synthesizers. If you know how things work you can achieve similar results with almost any synth, be it a bassline, pad, or percussive sound you want to create. (When it comes to creating a particular timbre, things may get more complicated with FM-synthesis though.) Due to possibility of waveshaping, sequencing, or otherwise modifying LFOs, Native Instruments Massive is particularly popular among dubstep producers. If you like, you can read "particularly popular" as "each and every producer is using it," which is a decent reason to try something different - deadmau5 at all uses hardware synthesizers heavily. However, it requires more than basic skill and knowledge and is more expensive. For that reason software ones dominate in the community. And you're right, on YouTube there is lots of tutorials, for almost any (widespread) synth imaginable.

I thinkk it is a good approach towards composing. Idea of intentional limitation is not new: for example, there was Oulipo - a group of writers in France who used constrained writing techniques. So one could have expected it in music, and moreover: a key is also a limitation in its own way, which means basically all music is somewhat restrained (including atonal which is restrained by being atonal, i.e. it has at least one rule to follow). The only difference is to what extent do you limit it; to my view, the lesser space for maneuvers you have, the more original your music may be - you have to invent workarounds to do simple things instead of walking the beaten path, and the results are completely different from what you're used to.

If you want to have a great humanity in the sound you should play with passion. Here's a counter-example: give violin to anyone who don't know how to play it and it will sound, well, bad. So it's a performer not an instrument. In the world of synthesizers there are ones that are very flexible - depending on velocity and sustain they will sound absolutely different. Instrument thus isn't supposed to have a 'humanity', it is supposed not to limit the performer. Using synths you can express yourself no worse than using acoustic instruments, and in several cases, electronic instruments just work better (which is called propensity and determines what someone is up to). If a piece doesn't sound human (unintentionally), then it has something to do with personality of its author and if he blames instruments for which he composed, he is missing the point and is beating the dead horse.

I think that people paying attention are a different matter, and I won't to listen to pieces by composer who only cares about how people would perceive his works. So if jtay feels like doing it, he should go for it. As for me, Pterodactyl's Nest is pretty good title and if someone had managed to create a thrilling atmosphere it would be great. Late jurassic music opposed to classical and contemporary...Yeah, do it :thumbsup: