+- XOR Userforum (https://forum.xor.eu)
+-- Forum: Products (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: NerdSEQ (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: Feature requests (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+---- Thread: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features (/showthread.php?tid=1038)
New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mgd - 03-10-2021
Hi Forum!
In another thread mntbighker did ask if and how NerdSEQ could be used to replicate some of Bloom's features. That got me thinking and here is what I think would be a useful addition to NerdSEQ's FX and probably go a long way towards Bloom's function.
I would like to see a FX like STSP with additional modification of the pattern thus started:
- transpose the pattern
- retrograde (german: Krebs) the pattern, i.e. play the notes backwards
- inversion (german: Umkehrung) of the pattern, i.e. all note intervals change their direction from up to down and vice versa; first note would be fix...and should be transposed to get the inversion at a different level
- retrograde inversion (german: Krebsumkehrung) of the pattern - combination of retrograde and inversion at the same time
- change the scale of the pattern, e.g. change a major melody into minor
I think the above together with the PRFn functions would allow for lots of rather interesting evolving melodies, all created a single pattern by the NerdSEQ.
And while I'm at it:
I would want all of the above not only on local/sample tracks but on CV16, MIDI and Trigger16 (inversion, transpose and scale have limited use here) as well.
What do others think?
And is some of it already possible w/o me realizing how?
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mntbighker - 03-11-2021
(03-10-2021, 11:44 AM)mgd Wrote: Hi Forum!I'd have to say that my comment is with Bloom the interface drives the perceived randomness. It's as much about how you get there, as what you actually get. And I don't see Nerdseq duplicating the how. I agree with a desire for generative. Bloom kinda provides it in a playable way. Where Nerdseq will likely be more like doing an algebra problem ;-)
In another thread mntbighker did ask if and how NerdSEQ could be used to replicate some of Bloom's features. That got me thinking and here is what I think would be a useful addition to NerdSEQ's FX and probably go a long way towards Bloom's function.
I could be totally off my rocker of course.
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mgd - 03-11-2021
(03-11-2021, 12:02 AM)mntbighker Wrote: [snip]
Bloom kinda provides it in a playable way. Where Nerdseq will likely be more like doing an algebra problem ;-)
This is getting somewhat philosophical now, but
- I think I agree with the above somewhat shortened description
- some predictability and most importantly repeatability are prime ingredients to any form of music (IMO)
Maybe I don't know enough about (mostly) randomly created music, but I have yet to come across anything in that area that I do not find boring. There is a reason for why we use chords, scales, chord progressions and the like
Chords and to some extend probabilistic chord progressions are possible with the existing tools. My above proposal is basically an extension to that concept.
Kind regards,
Michael
PS: In case this isn't clear:
I don't own Bloom and don't expect to. All I know about it is from reading the manual, reading on MuffWiggler and watching product videos.
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mntbighker - 03-11-2021
(03-11-2021, 06:55 AM)mgd Wrote: Maybe I don't know enough about (mostly) randomly created music, but I have yet to come across anything in that area that I do not find boring. There is a reason for why we use chords, scales, chord progressions and the like
I must say I have been very interested lately in the line between interesting and boring in generative. It's interesting to see what it takes to keep the ear from getting bored. Especially in generative background ambiance that you keep playing for hours.
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mgd - 03-12-2021
That's precisely what I'm aiming for (not limited to background ambience, but...).
The best I've been able to achieve so far by using off-the-shelves modules (as opposed to write my own algorithms by means of O_c or Bela Pepper) has been a combination of O_c algorithms "Harrington 1200" and "Automatonnetz" and the 2 x Doepfer A-149-1 and A-149-2 combo for somewhat musical variation. At least for background my ears still liked it after 2 hours of playing
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mntbighker - 03-12-2021
(03-12-2021, 07:13 AM)mgd Wrote: That's precisely what I'm aiming for (not limited to background ambience, but...).
The best I've been able to achieve so far by using off-the-shelves modules (as opposed to write my own algorithms by means of O_c or Bela Pepper) has been a combination of O_c algorithms "Harrington 1200" and "Automatonnetz" and the 2 x Doepfer A-149-1 and A-149-2 combo for somewhat musical variation. At least for background my ears still liked it after 2 hours of playing
Kind regards,
Michael
Those Doepfer modules look very interesting. I have only barely even used my O_C so far. Are those in the "stock" firmware?
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mgd - 03-12-2021
When I got my first A-149-1/2 I was so impressed with the "musicallity" (they aren't musical but it felt a bit like it), that I quickly got a second A-149-1 (I don't need more random triggers). Since then my Turing Machine (+Volts+Pulses) basically is occupying space in my rack...haven't sold them yet but am slowly moving there
O_C IMO is just a nice-to-have module. If nothing else it can always function as 4 quantizer and as such it is clearly worth the money
The afore mentioned algorithms are all part of the "stock" firmware. See https://ornament-and-cri.me/user-manual-v1_3/
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mvdirty - 03-12-2021
I’ve been watching this thread and very nearly replied yesterday with one of my usual snarky comments about how much Bloom rocks as a concept and sucks as an implemented module. Figured I’d best spare you that one.
re: the fine line between interesting and boring in generative - I too have found that exploration in itself interesting. I have a good family of pattern generators (and modules near to that general function) and occasionally find gold but more often find something from which I want to extract its generated pattern and then add/remove/adjust certain things to get to gold.
Most of these modules have sweet spots so narrow, and in some cases poorly mapped, such that, using Bloom as an example, you can arrive at something nearly like gold, think to turn a knob ever so slightly to perhaps find gold, and end up somewhere terrible without the ability to get back to where you were. Or just let it evolve and quickly go from gold to junk, again with no reasonable way back. Or, using Tuesday as an example, the sweet spots may be less narrow, which is appreciated, but the knob turns more often go from good to differently good or to more variably good (with some aspects having improved but others worsened) rather than from good to gold.
Bringing me, in part, to O_C, specifically the fork with TB-3PO. This fork in particular interests me because the seed is displayed on screen. If ever you hear gold, or even near gold, you can write down the seed or take a quick photo with your phone. Here in NerdSEQ, with whatever abilities it gains in this general area, it might not be convenient to save but at least one can easily clone the current pattern for safety.
I wonder if NerdSEQ might be best and most simply served by a couple of separate features which could be used together when wanted: The ability to generate pattern content, perhaps in a marked range, rather like Vector’s pattern generation. And the ability to permanently mutate aspects of a given row, via FX.
It might in practice fall somewhere between Vector’s overall capabilities and those of more dedicated pattern generators, but with the NerdSEQ flare of FX.
RE: New FX to mimic some of Bloom's features - mntbighker - 03-12-2021
(03-12-2021, 04:38 PM)mvdirty Wrote: I’ve been watching this thread and very nearly replied yesterday with one of my usual snarky comments about how much Bloom rocks as a concept and sucks as an implemented module. Figured I’d best spare you that one.
I'm going to say that in general Bloom produces more boring than interesting for me. On balance. For some reason being relegated to the percussion case that has improved though.
Interesting comments... some over my head ;-)