Bespoke apps / feature requests

Igneous1

I would imagine that (in an ideal world) almost everyone would love to have a 'bespoke app' custom made for their particular musical requirements (myself included), but if you're not a developer the chances of that happening are slim. However, I see some feature requests which appear to be akin to a 'wish list' for an ideal app.

I would presume this may be a tad difficult for developers, on one hand trying to be open to user feedback and feature requests, but also problematic regarding any possible inclusion in an app - some requests being too difficult to implement or just not fitting in with the original intention and scope of the app. An app could become the proverbial 'camel' - a horse designed by a committee. Of course, feature requests may help in the development of any app, but I would imagine developers have a clear overview of their apps themselves.

I'm trying to take the view with the apps that I predominantly use is to work with them 'as they are', accepting that there are new features I'd really like, but they may only be useful to me. So I need to adapt to the app's workflow, scope, or whatever.

Will

You didn't ask if you could get a witness but raised my hand high anyway. This post should be stickied with the title "The Zen of Using IOS Apps to Make Music."

[Deleted User]

Yes, finding my own ritual metaphorically.

lieslavish

@Igneous1 said:
I'm trying to take the view with the apps that I predominantly use is to work with them 'as they are', accepting that there are new features I'd really like, but they may only be useful to me. So I need to adapt to the app's workflow, scope, or whatever.

Not that I'm saying anything new, but I think that limitations are a well-spring of musicality (and all other arts, as well). "Limitation-based" design philosophy is what gave us KORG's much-beloved 'Gadget,' which could just have easily crammed all of its synthesis features into a single app but instead draws on the novelty of many individual tools, each constrained to a particular purpose. So many musical styles were born from the way that people have adapted to the usage of particular tools: modern dance styles, chip-tune styles, hip-hop -- even the most classic of genres wouldn't be what they are if guitars and drums were capable of a little more or a little less, and virtuosos are given their title by their ability to take an instrument and push it to the limits of what its capable of -- limits which are, of course, defined by the design of the instrument, itself.

Before I became an iOS-focused musician, I spent years learning about synths with PC software, and I often found that the instruments that were the most easy to get music out of were the ones that made a particular sound (as obvious as that seems). Although I loved it for its deep programmability, Yoshimi (based on ZynAddSubFX) was more fun to program than it was to play, because it really was capable of anything (it seemed to me at the time, anyway). My experiences with Yoshimi changed the way that I look at synthesizers; although it's sad that features are so often sacrificed for the sake of elegance and usability, it's equally sad that elegance is often a necessary sacrifice when you try to turn an instrument into a Swiss-army-knife.

I agree that, while every user should be allowed (and encouraged) to make suggestions regarding features which might be the perfect fit for a tool, it's important -- and musical -- to be open to the influence of your instruments instead of always trying to impose your influence on them. Sometimes, it's the most subtle or annoying quirk of their mediums that inspires an artist to works of genius that they never would have created, otherwise.

Thanks for the food for thought.

[EDIT] Oh, and by the way, I highly recommend trying Yoshimi, although I see now that it's only available on Linux. If you're on Mac or Windows, get ZynAddSubFX; they're both free, a ton of fun, and sound great. Depending on your preferred workflow, it could be the last synth that you ever need!

u0421793

Interestingly, I think one of the products of getting quite a lot older whilst still being in the synthesiser knob twiddling game, is (for me personally, anyway) a growing suspicion of processes that seem fun to engage in during the making of, but produce an end result that anybody else would shrug and accept as normal or nothing special. In other words, processes that are more fun to play than to listen to — i.e. masturbation.

When I had a Yamaha SY77 I was all over this new synthesis technology — not only did it have eight operator FM (which topped the standard DX7-ish stuff by an extra two!), but also built in sample rom playback (which was common at the time) but also, also, wait, it could use the AWM2 (sample rom) as the operator modulator! This promised to be so brilliant an idea they cooked up a new name for it — RCM — Realtime Convolution and Modulation synthesis.

I bought an SY77 and used it for years (and then owned another one later for a short while) (i.e. days) (because someone with an Arp 2600 wanted to swap with one, and I knew where a secondhand SY77 was so I rushed out and bought it in preparation) (which means I’ve had an Arp 2600 for the past 20 years, only partially functioning, but with Roger Glover stencilled on the back). For the entire duration of owning an SY77 I honestly could not tell the difference between sounds made with RCM or any other means — and I know my synthesis! If I played an RCM patch, nobody else, literally nobody on this planet, would either know it was made with RCM, or care, or even realise there was anything different, distinctive or unusual about it.

However, the making of the RCM patches was a very exciting and brave new pursuit, knowing we’re at the leading edge and doing something hitherto not easily possible. It added up to nothing in the end.

Wavetable synthesis is, for me, in a similar bucket. Not quite as much, but there’s nothing about wavetable synthesis that “normal” people prick up their ears for.

Igneous1

@lieslavish

Yes, that's very similar to what I was trying to say. An app becoming a 'swiss army knife' when it had unique features originally is a good example.

What I should have added is that the iOS world is unique regarding music making in that (with few exceptions), the developers are willing to listen to users and take their thoughts on board. The down side of that is that these feature requests may become overwhelming / inappropriate.

db909

A good rule of thumb, for getting developers to consider feature requests, is to think of features that will not require any UI redesign or at the very least, the bare minimum UI redesign (things like: there's a blank space over there, you could put a toggle button there), etc. Even my dream, ideal app has changed designs several times because I kept envisioning it having it all and then realized, no that would suck and be cumbersome, keep it simple. That being said, there are a lot of apps with what I find to be "curious omissions". And I'm not talking about Audiobus or MIDI. I'm talking about things that are so completely in sync with the spirit of the app and how it functions, not overly complicated, and would surely raise the app from 9 to a 10, that are strangely left out. But that being said, at the end of the day we are all incredibly blessed to have this technology at all.

db909

curious omission example: The volume faders in ikaossilator. I mean REALLY.

[Deleted User]

@u0421793 said:
Interestingly, I think one of the products of getting quite a lot older whilst still being in the synthesiser knob twiddling game, is (for me personally, anyway) a growing suspicion of processes that seem fun to engage in during the making of, but produce an end result that anybody else would shrug and accept as normal or nothing special. In other words, processes that are more fun to play than to listen to — i.e. masturbation.

When I had a Yamaha SY77 I was all over this new synthesis technology — not only did it have eight operator FM (which topped the standard DX7-ish stuff by an extra two!), but also built in sample rom playback (which was common at the time) but also, also, wait, it could use the AWM2 (sample rom) as the operator modulator! This promised to be so brilliant an idea they cooked up a new name for it — RCM — Realtime Convolution and Modulation synthesis.

I bought an SY77 and used it for years (and then owned another one later for a short while) (i.e. days) (because someone with an Arp 2600 wanted to swap with one, and I knew where a secondhand SY77 was so I rushed out and bought it in preparation) (which means I’ve had an Arp 2600 for the past 20 years, only partially functioning, but with Roger Glover stencilled on the back). For the entire duration of owning an SY77 I honestly could not tell the difference between sounds made with RCM or any other means — and I know my synthesis! If I played an RCM patch, nobody else, literally nobody on this planet, would either know it was made with RCM, or care, or even realise there was anything different, distinctive or unusual about it.

However, the making of the RCM patches was a very exciting and brave new pursuit, knowing we’re at the leading edge and doing something hitherto not easily possible. It added up to nothing in the end.

Wavetable synthesis is, for me, in a similar bucket. Not quite as much, but there’s nothing about wavetable synthesis that “normal” people prick up their ears for.

I used to drool over an SY77. I had my well fingered copies of the two issues of Sound on Sound that the reviews appeared in.

I never ended up with one

Today I was drooling over the new Yamaha Montage. Again it has advanced DX over the DX7 and I think it mixes well with the AWM2 and the infamous BIg Knob

Still too expensive for myself at this time

JeffChasteen

@lieslavish said:

@Igneous1 said:
I'm trying to take the view with the apps that I predominantly use is to work with them 'as they are', accepting that there are new features I'd really like, but they may only be useful to me. So I need to adapt to the app's workflow, scope, or whatever.

Not that I'm saying anything new, but I think that limitations are a well-spring of musicality (and all other arts, as well). "Limitation-based" design philosophy is what gave us KORG's much-beloved 'Gadget,' which could just have easily crammed all of its synthesis features into a single app but instead draws on the novelty of many individual tools, each constrained to a particular purpose. So many musical styles were born from the way that people have adapted to the usage of particular tools: modern dance styles, chip-tune styles, hip-hop -- even the most classic of genres wouldn't be what they are if guitars and drums were capable of a little more or a little less, and virtuosos are given their title by their ability to take an instrument and push it to the limits of what its capable of -- limits which are, of course, defined by the design of the instrument.
I agree that, while every user should be allowed (and encouraged) to make suggestions regarding features which might be the perfect fit for a tool, it's important -- and musical -- to be open to the influence of your instruments instead of always trying to impose your influence on them. Sometimes, it's the most subtle or annoying quirk of their mediums that inspires an artist to works of genius that they never would have created, otherwise.

Wise words that bear repeating (and remembering)