Wiki "Thereminist" article draft Part 2

[i]"That got me thinking about this issue - it is a "motion sensor" -Joe [/i]

A motion sensor is a sensor that detects motion - The Theremin sensor detects capacitance equating to proximity.

A Theremin is not a motion sensor - it can be converted to a motion sensor by adding a circuit to extract rate of change (delta) of the signal - Capacitive motion sensors operate like this.. slow changes generally are ignored or used as a new 'baseline reference' - but changes which meet the rate of change / amount of change criterion are output as "motion detected".

We could use the change in pitch as a motion detector, and do human interpretation of this to extract meaning.. But we will still hear a pitch from a theremin if we are perfectly still - we cam play a constant note without having to move - so motion sensing is not the primary function.

[i]
"I'd agree with Bob in that the theremin is NOT a synthesizer, in the sense that a synthesizer is supposed to "synthesize" the sounds of acoustically vibrating instruments - at least, that was what the guys at RCA were after in developing the Mark IV." - Joe
[/i]

Absolute disagreement from me on everything in the above.
Sound is sound, and synthesis is synthesis - the source of the sound to be synthesised is irrelevant in this context - who says [i] "a synthesizer is supposed to "synthesize" the sounds of acoustically vibrating instruments" [/i] ?

[b] Edit --> [/b]
Any simple sine wave audio oscillator (the most basic form of sound) which can be controlled, qualifies as a "synthesiser" - it is synthesising a sound. If one wants to exclude the simple sine-wave oscillator, and say it is not a synthesiser, you need to define the 'line' behind which things are not "synthesisers" and beyond which, they are..
On what would one base such a line? The number of parameters of sound which can be modified? the complexity of the circuit? how much it costs? whether it uses digital or analogue circuitry (LOL!) ?

Lets say one decided that modification of waveform (harmonics) was required.. The Theremin would qualify.

Lets say one decided that DYNAMIC modification of waveform (harmonics) was required.. The Theremin would qualify.

Lets say one decided that modification of amplitude was required.. The Theremin would qualify.

Lets say one decided that synthesis of "the sounds of acoustically vibrating instruments" was required .. The Theremin would qualify here just as much in some classes of instrument as many other "Real Synthesisers" (LOL).. (try synthesising a violin being played off-key and erratically hunting for the right note, and you will do a better synthesis of this using an EW standard than by using a MiniMoog! :-)

Lets say one decided that PERFECTLY ACCURATE synthesis of "the sounds of acoustically vibrating instruments" was required .. There would then be no such thing as a "synthesiser" !

Thread drift arises yet again!

But in any case, Bob Moog's prevarication of "not really" pretty much sums it up. Bob came out of the background of the research by RCA, and "synthesizing" - in the sense of creating a "synthetic" musical instrument to imitate acoustic instruments - is exactly what they were after. Oscillators, filters and other sound generating and modifying devices had existed for decades by the mid-1950s, but nobody applied the term "synthesizing" to describe what they did. They were audio "generators".

But now, of course, the term "synthesizer" is used to describe so many things, the meaning encompasses what you describe, as well as a lot of other things (Star Trek "food synthesizers", anyone?)

But indeed, this is a distraction from the topic at hand. New thread?

[i]"(Star Trek "food synthesizers", anyone?)"[/i]

I do not think this matter is worthy of a new thread - I will not say anymore on it - except this.. A synthesiser which is an instrument for synthesising sounds, should more correctly be reffered to as a "Sound Synthesiser" - And such an instrument encompasses everything from an adjustable sine oscillator to an acoustic modelling DSP synthesiser.
How many bits of a Moog Modular would one need to have a sound synthesiser? - I would personally say that an oscillator and an amplitude controller and some form of input device (keyboard or sensor) would be the minimum.. but who am I to say where the line should be drawn?
By correct referrence to "Sound Synthesiser" one avoids confusion with the star trek "food synthesiser" or Protein synthesisers or any of the other synthesisers found in industry... Working in a biochemical lab, however, one would say "Take this sample over to the synthesiser please.." and no one would go out looking for a Moog... Likewise, when musicians talk about a synthesiser, no one thinks about a Roche ProteoMaster... And admittedly, they wouldnt think about a Theremin - But nonetheless thats what a Theremin is!

Gordon:

In regards to your suggestion of expanding "is utilized" to "is utilized predominantly", that sort of falls into the category of what Wiki guidelines call "weasel words". See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

Using that qualifier raises the question of what constitutes "predominantly" - how many users compared to what? Who counted? Where is that information published? And so on.

If we found a quote from Glinsky or Moog or someone who [i]published[/i] such an opinion, it could be included with appropriate framing, i.e. "according to Robert Moog , theremins are used predominantly in classical music..."

Or something like, "In a survey conducted by Moog Music in 1991 , 85% of the respondents reported using the theremin for classical music performance..."

But is the theremin simply [i]used[/i] for classical music? Of course, that's self-evident. We just have to be very careful with qualifiers unless they can be sourced.

But it does make me wonder - if Moog or PAIA or Burns really did conduct a survey about what their buyers used their theremins for, would classical players be "predominant"? Would they greatly outweigh the avant-garde/experimentalist/noise-maker users?

"Weasel words." Heh. This is why the article should benefit from a collaborative approach. It requires people with wikipedia skills as well as people with extensive theremin knowledge. (But I guess it will have to make do with us. :-)

Actually I was trying to say that classical music scores seldom call for more than one theremin (if they call for any at all.) But that would also require citation.

As to usage, my opinion is that one could probably arrange thereminists in a pyramid structure. (They might even enjoy it!)

At the top, and fewest of all, classically skilled thereminists who can earn a living out of it. Then rather more aspiring classical thereminists, then even more electronic musicians who count a theremin amongst their musical armoury, then yet more people who own a theremin and use it for the important tasks of cupboard filling and dust collection.

I think Moog dropping the etherwave pro and introducing the etherwave plus is indicative of Moog knowing on which side their bread is buttered.

I also don't think this is peculiar to the theremin. It is likely true of most instruments that have a place in both the world of virtuoso music and what I think of as "folk" music. (By which I mean music made by non-classically trained people, who don't aspire to virtuoso skills but have a great time banging out a tune nonetheless. Rhythm guitarists, keyboard vampers - the guys who know a few chords and can keep a beat. I know "folk" has a rather different meaning in music, but I can't think of a better word.)