Introduction

exonerate · 29 Dec 2009

Hey mwvdlee welcome to SM 😀

Can't say I've ever given your question a thought before.......

The case of music software looking realistic and having nice GUI ect, well I think this is because the initial function of soft synths and effects was to imitate hardware. I think a nice GUI just gives the impression of hardware which I think helped a lot of hardware users make the switch to computers because of the familiarity of the interfaces.

Also a very large portion of synthesiser users are not sound designers there just preset users so to these people how important is function? To these people it is just how the presets sound and the looks than sell the synth.

How many people buy or use graphic software without actually using any of it's functions? I'd bet none. A lot of people buy synths without ever tweaking a knob or at least very rarely. Your software has to look good to sway these types of people.

Also I think as time has gone on interface have become more exotic because developers wanted to break the mould and create new and exciting ways to manipulate audio. One of the driving forces I think is the fact that the synthesiser paradigm is now very old, the audio side of things has gone stale there's no real room for any kind of innovation so now the innovation comes more from looks and how the user interacts with the underling synthesis components.

Cheers 😉

Exo

TomC · 29 Dec 2009

mwvdlee wrote: Question Anyway, perhaps you guys can help me answer this question that's been bugging me: Why do tools for musicians all have pretty, colorful and "realistic" GUI's and do tools for graphicians have simple and boring GUI's? It just doesn't seem logical that a person who is more graphically inclined would prefer something graphically dull whereas a person who is less graphically inclined would prefer beautifull graphics. I have my own (strong, and hopefully controversial 😉) theories on this, but I'd like to hear yours first! 🙂

Hello, welcome to the forum and Merry Christmas 🙂

Actually, this question has a VERY simple answer: sales.

Some years ago audio people noticed that it's MUCH easier to sell plug-ins when they proclaimed to be existing hardware. And it's MUCH easier to proclaim to be existing hardware if your UI actually looks like the hardware [*].

The graphic guys didn't need, or have, hardware to emulate, so they did the straightforward approach: build a usable UI without to much blinkenlights.

Tom

[*] Search for 'Antress Modern Plugins'. Doesn't sound anywhere near the original hardware, but the UI looked vintage enough (and raised enough controversy) to make Wave buy the guy. Now the UI and names have changed for legal reasons.

Disco_Steve · 29 Dec 2009

I also think people making art, or image manipulation, don't want to be distracted by the plug-in interface. they have a picture in there minds eye and want to get that via the plug-ins, a beautiful GUI could wipe that inspiration. with sound a nice picture on the screen doesn't really put you off. if anything, inspire?

I personaly dont like flash GUI's, I want some very borring sliders. very borring knobs and text edit variable control. because the guis are so distracting for a science brain like me. but as said, those plug-ins don't sell 🙁 so I have to work out how to make things pretty! (ARRRR)

great to hear about you Steve

trogluddite · 31 Dec 2009

Hi there, welcome to SM,

Must say, it's always nice to come across someone asking the more philosophical questions about why we sit up til 3am writing assembly code!! Makes a nice change from 'How do I make my filter go ZWEEOWOEEEIXIZZZZ'

As someone who does both music and art, I've noticed your point about the 'aesthetics of tools' myself.. As has been said before, IMHO it comes down to money - unfortunately most folks buying music gear just want something flash to pose with - let's face it, the state of the music industry these days comes down to who can do karaoke whilst looking the prettiest - there are plenty of homeless buskers with more talent than all the TV 'talent' shows and chart listings put together.

Strange thing is, when I'm designing a synth myself, I'll still spend weeks making the user interface as pretty as I can (though not 'realistic' - I'll get my soldering iron out if I want that); but when it comes to making music, I just want the right tool for the job - I don't care what it looks like any more than I care what colour the handles on my paint brushes are.

SM is a great way to make your wacky, original, abstract ideas into something useable - why on earth some folks are still writing Moog and TB303 emulators is totally beyond my understanding.

Lethargy and conformism are apparently the new 'ccol' - whatever you do, don't ever try anything new, inventive, surreal, etc... etc... (sorry, I feel one of my drunken rants about how great the anarchist punk scene used to be coming on - I'd better shut up now)

Keep the interesting questions coming,

The Luddite.

Tzarls · 31 Dec 2009

Well, I always go the other way - I design my VST using all the stock controls and without worrying about the GUI, except maybe for placement of said controls and general layout. Then, when I have a working model, I´ll focus my efforts into saving some CPU. During those 2 stages of development, I´ll only think of the GUI when driving of taking a bath, those times when I can´t have my PC to do some programming. Finally, I´ll try to make a decent GUI, knowing from the beginning that no matter how hard i try, somehow Aliasant´s GUI will always look far better than mine, and I´ll be dying with envy. 😉

Having said that, the first VSTi I ever released took me about a year of efforts and my GUI wasn´t THAT bad, but some guy at KVR got really mad because it looked like "another cheap SynthEdit VST". He didn´t even complaint about the sound of it, of CPU usage. All he had to say was something like "it looks awful - these developers shouldn´t exist". Go figure.

Anyway, my next GUI will be even uglier. Of that, I´m sure. 🙂

aliasant · 31 Dec 2009

Lol Tzarl. Thanx for the compliment 🙂

I do agree with Steve.

When working with graphics I dont want anything disturbing me and my "color senses" There is even a setting in Photoshop were you can make the tiny little blue PS icon on the toolbox b&w instead of blue. Same with the Color Channels in Photoshop. They can be set to display its actual color or just in b&w. B&w is default.

When making music on the other hand I dont mind being inspired by colors and stuff as long as its there for the right reasons. I want the gui in a plug to explain it self and since Im used to old hardware that is what makes the most sense to me but lately I have been working on guis that dont look like "realworld" stuff. Mainly a sequencer that simply cannot be controlled by a few knobs and buttons.

At the same time I do like the way the old ProTools looked. Very basic and straight forward grey gui. Today ProTools looks just as hardware inspired as most of the others. THe old style worked very well when working as a sound engie. I didnt have time to be distracted by blinking lights or bright colors when recording others. I had to be focused on the artist and try to feel what he felt so that I could capture him as well as possible.

Maybe there are different markets here?

1 for those the play around at home or musicians that needs the muse. Another one for the "professionals", engineers and such who just want it to work as fast and simple as possible without disturbing his links to the artists around him?

Maybe every plugin needs 2 interfaces?