Lauren the Ghoti says:

I agree, it’s pretty much just another UI – sometimes, people’ll get so caught up in the cool-factor of the tech that they lose sight of the fact that they’ve just reinvented the wheel.

But the fer-real buzzkiller is that multiuser musical instruments have never been much use, nor will they ever be – until humans develop hive minds, that is… Maybe if, say, a bunch of Moonies tried playing it?

#9 – John Paradox

“…don’t most of the sample sound a LOT like the “electronic tonalities” (music) from Forbidden Planet?”

I would direct your attention to the bottom-line analysis BillBC offers in comment #1… 🙂

Lauren the Ghoti says:

#13 – Scott Gant

“And what’s with everyone crapping all over something new? Some of you sound like downright ludites half the time. Perhaps we shouldn’t try to “reinvent the wheel”….of course we’d probably have stone wheels on all our cars if someone hadn’t gone out on a limb to reinvent those.”

Test or no, you seem to have missed the point, at least my point… Musical instruments are single-user devices, intended to output an individual’s musical expression, under that user’s sole guidance and control. Musical collaboration entails multiple players with their own instruments. As I noted, we don’t have hive minds.

A multiuser musical instrument is about as useful as a paintbrush with multiple handles or a typewriter with multiple keyboards; something intended for individual use, with a collaborative interface tacked on. What’s the point? Cars don’t have two sets of controls. Cameras don’t have two viewfinders and shutter releases. Even on tandem bicycles, the second person does nothing to contribute to guidance, they’re along for the ride.

Are you an inventor? No? Well, I am. (and just as relevantly, I’m also a musician) And I’m here to tell you, nobody here’s “crapping on something new.” No Luddites involved. It’s called ‘discrimination,’ aka common sense.

It’s new? OK, that’s nice. But there’s an even more important criterion, called ‘utility.’ “Oh, gee, I see you’ve put a video camera inside a toaster and a little LCD on the outside so you can see when the toast is done. Since no one ever did this before, it might be a good idea.” Aaah, sorry, but no. It isn’t. It might be clever, but so what? What good is it? That overrides everything (unless you’re a conceptual artist…)

Novelty, by itself, is not and has never been reason enough to override an invention’s flaws – and the biggest flaw any invention can exhibit is that it fails to address a need. IOW, if it’s useless, it’s useless.

This item’s an intriguing experiment and it might very well inspire something useful and novel. But that’s about it. They can keep working on it all they like, and more power to them. But people still don’t play collaborative instruments. And anyone with a couple hundred bucks can synthesize any – any possible waveform, so I ask you – what good is it?

Your point about stone wheels is bogus. We have improved the wheel and adapted it to many uses – but that is not “reinventing” it. You seem to miss the ironic point of that phrase – the wheel is perfect; it is not possible to “reinvent” it. A circle cannot be made “more circular.” So when someone is said to have “reinvented the wheel,” it’s a droll way of saying that they’ve invented nothing, just rehashed something long ago perfected.

Lauren the Ghoti says:

#16 – Danijel

“You are soo wrong! You totally miss the point of this invention! It’s not like a multiuser paintbrush but a multiuser canvas.”

I’m not certain you grok. More than one user is providing input simultaneously. And each user’s input affects the others. If it were, as you say, more like a canvas, each user’s input would be completely independent of others’. Any number of people can paint or draw on one piece of canvas without their input interacting with anyone else’s. Your analogy is poor. This thing combines inputs, making it a mixer of sorts.

“And music is not and individual thing but a collaborative process where people can jam together to achieve more than all the individuals can separately. It’s pretty obvious you never played in a band.”

Yeah, pretty obvious, like since I was 10. I might have some vague idea of what music is, thanks for the lesson.

Obviously, to borrow your word, you didn’t read what I said. “Musical collaboration entails multiple players with their own instruments.” When was the last time you saw two drummers seated at the same set? Or two people playing the same guitar?

“And with statements like “Are you an inventor? No? Well, I am.” it is also obvious you are a pretty egoistic person, too…”

Nope. Just an assertion of fact. I invent things. And it was necessary to point this out to Scott G when he talks about ‘crapping all over something new,” in order to make clear that as a person who tries to devise new things, I would hardly criticize something simply because it’s new. The idea is silly – I was pointing out that I, at least, would be among the very last people to do such a thing.

“I think my battery’s dead.” “No, it’s the starter. I’m an auto mechanic.” “Wow, that’s pretty egotistic!” Puh-leez.

“I can’t say I like the music these guys are making, but I do like the gadget. It looks like a neat instrument, especially for design…”

So you say you don’t care for what it actually does, but it’s cool, right? I agree – Tres cool. Just not very useful.

#17 – Steve

“Two players on two instruments or two players manipulating sound through the same interface… It seems like it would create a more intimate platform for musical collaboration. Think jazz.”

Ya, it’s something that some experimental musicians will love, no doubt. But experimental music is light years from the musical mainstream and very much an acquired taste. So while I agree with you, I would still say it’s of interest only to artists in a very narrow musical niche. People have been inventing collaborative instruments almost since there’s been music – but then, as now, and for the foreseeable future, artists virtually always prefer to express themselves, without input from others. Playing an instrument, like most other forms of artistic creation, remains a very personal act.

#18 – Gimpy

“Hmmm, sounds similar to someone saying that “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”, or that “Aircraft are interesting toys, but of no military value.” or that # “Television won’t be able to hold onto any market it captures after the first six mmonths. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”

No, not really.

“People change, as does what they do, to assert that something is not going to happen simply because the first iterations were not very practical, is setting yourself up for future mockery.”

It would be far more accurate to say “individuals change.” But the basic, hardwired mind function that goes into artistic expression does not change – at least not since the beginning of recorded history. Creativity remains, and will remain (at least until we develop the hive minds I mentioned) an expression of the individual. Check back in a few millennia, and we’ll see what, if anything, has changed.

Being very much a futurist, I have to chuckle at your admonition there. At the risk of being call “egoistic” again by Danijel, I’ll just say I spend more time and thought on the future and its possibilities than anyone I’ve known, and looking back at my track record, I like to think I’ve gotten a pretty good handle on what changes and what doesn’t. I suspect humans will remain human for a while yet. 🙂

#19 – BertDawg

“It’s the visuals. Just as some people will and have spent HOURS screwing around with LINE RIDER, so some people will spend much time with this, simply because, to them, it’s fascinating. To me, this gizmo, much like television, is simply another way of sucking your thumb.”

Once again, Bert, you’ve bypassed the hoopla and cut to the chase.

It’s that ‘Gee-Whiz’ factor. As a UI, there’s definitely something there definitely worth exploring, and I’m gonna think a bit on it myself…

But as a creative musical instrument, I’ve no doubt a handful of devotees will spring up and create a tiny cult, as with the Theremin – but for everyone else, sooner or later, it’ll wind up in the back of the closet with many of the other “revolutionary” inventions that fail to take human nature into account.