Most late 20th century western musical movements and the cultural changes that came with them was down to manufacturers of instruments. It was usually a box, synthesizer or effects unit. Surely the R&D for new sounds is what music depends on?
You could create all kinds of new sounds and technologies and they would have no impact if audiences didn't connect with them.
Some people have a certain fluency with sound and music. It's not about training, although training will bring it out if someone has it. But it seems pretty innate. And it cuts through in a way that the work of people without the fluency doesn't.
Roland used to be masters of this. Their rhythm and bass boxes seemed like stupid failed toys, but they had a magic that wasn't obvious until they were handed to people who didn't try to use them in the "proper" way.
That's fluency from two sources - something the original designers somehow had (until Roland stopped being that kind of company) mixed with the feel the pioneering users had.
This story is another example of that.
Compare with - say - Yamaha's attempts to sell physical modelling synthesis. There was much money spent, a good selection of instruments produced, but it failed to cut through. Possibly because it ended up being a system of presets and directed constraints that limited imagination instead of opening it up. (Or possibly not. It's a mysterious process.)
For those who don't know, the TB-303 is probably the most entertaining story of this kind.
> ... the box was largely written off as a failure after just 18 months of production. It was released alongside the TR-606 drum machine as an accompaniment for guitarists, but with unrealistic sounds and a difficult interface the box got little traction upon release. [1]
It became the source of a signature sound in dance music, which remains extensively used today and can be heard in tracks with mainstream chart success. It's terrible interface is somehow part of its charm and it has been cloned in many formats.
This is probably the best way to experience it in a browser [2]
From what I've heard, sample libraries of acoustic instruments are a system of presets and directed constraints (inability to replicate complex dynamics, articulation, and pitch bends). I haven't tried physical modeling, and don't know if it manages to escape this issue, or ends up too complex to learn/perform or stuck in an uncanny valley. (This is from the perspective of orchestral-inspired sound design rather than more synthetic compositions.)
This implies that the manufacturers had a decent grasp of "where things would go," and I think that couldn't be further from the truth? All the good (or at least interesting) stuff came from "hackers," aka the scratching DJs, the guys who had to scrape for beat machines, etc. etc. Limitations being the inspiration and all that.
I don't think it's necessarily the sounds, but what the article describes, "bringing the pleasure of playing a musical instrument to everyone". New ways of creating music end up in the hands of people that otherwise may not have gotten started, and new styles emerge.
I think it was always the case that the development of instruments is a major influence on musical styles. Sacred music and the church organ, Baroque music and the harpsichord, Romantics and the piano, Jazz and sax, the list goes on and on.
Today however, synthesizers can create any sound imaginable so we probably reached the end of the cycle. Who knows what will guide the future of music.
Utility != usability. Synthesizers can create any sound, but which sounds they make easy to create has an enormous influence on what music is actually created using them.
