I think i’ve only played my moog sober once…maybe twice counting the time i purchased it
interesting discussion with many different opinions.
i can’t really detect a snob attitude in any of these postings though. au contraire, mon capitain. i think that most synth players have a fairly democratic approach to technology today. consider also that recording technology is, quality-wise, pretty much unsurpassed. most of us probably own some sort of hard disk multitrack machine or someting like that. my mickey-mouse tape recorder went out the window ages ago. and yep, i loved it to bits, literally.
sometimes i don’t even bother with mixing to hd anymore but record analog moog sounds straight to mp3 with my tiny iriver thing. sure there’s loss, but it doesn’t really matter. it all goes online anyways. who wants big fat wav files?
i just wanted to point out that most of the time any instrument can be useful, analog, digital, hybrid, wood, no wood, whatever. the creamware minimax has wood. had i not bought a voyager, i’d have probably gone for a minimax as it has less gadgetry and pretty much looks and feels like a mini. even if it may not be a signature edition voyager, it looks like it’s fun to play. and that’s precisely what i am looking for in any instrument.
yep, wood is a good thing.
a few years ago i bought something called rubber duck, a kind of sequencer software. just a few days ago i found it free of charge for download somewhere. when i first bought it i loved it. today, i didn’t enjoy it that much even though my pc is way faster. i just think i got used to tweakery and fiddlery and found out that oldskool software is not as user friendly and intuitive as, say, a cyclodon-minimax combo!
i too think that moogs have magic, that’s why i got one and went through the shlepp of being utterly shattered and disappointed and getting it updated and repaired. but i also had my other gear fixed over the years, which is mostly digital and low budget stuff.
so if any of the moog folks are eavesdropping here, stop dropping your eaves all over the place and build a smaller synth without so much complicated stuff inside, ok? you know you can do it! come on! 
(and if you’re having fun doing that, just put a digital 16 step sequencer in it if it makes it more affordable and works well, eh?)
I’m sorry, but I simply don’t get the merritt of playing a Moog while intoxicated - with the obvious exception of how the bloody thing can lift your spirits while you’re playing it. There definitely is something about the Moog name that carries more than just a sound.
when i had piano lessons as a kid in russia, i was tought always to wash my hands before playing. i still do that today, before playing my synthesizers. being drunk while playing would contravene my strict code of synthesizer playing conduct in a big way.
an instrument like a synthesizer is expensive, and it’s a special part of my life. it commands respect, and lots of practice. it’s not just a tool, it’s a means of communication. just as it’s not polite to burp in the phone, drinking and playing will probably have a bad effect on the playing technique.
but then again, as the folks in cologne say: jeder jeck is anders. look it up.
Playing high is not about the keyboard. It’s about the knobs. When sober, the synth is amazing. It can do anything. When high, everything is amazing. Thus, it makes amazing things phenomenal! When drunk, it’s confusing and upsetting. High and drunk are totally different.
-Tyler2000-
Indeed they are. Just make sure you ain’t smoking any spliffs near your equipment! 
i always play high, i live on the sixth floor. the highest floor in the building!
Oh wow. That’s aweful.
I would sooner die than smoke near my stuff.
-Tyler2000-
for me it mostly depends on the interface.
i like using old 70’s synths because everything is laid out and you have instant full control over every function, i like the sound of the my dx synths but i hardly use them because they’re not as fun/rewarding to play. Most modern synths are not only synths either, they double or triple up as samplers, sequencers, effects etc. I prefer using more archetypal creative tools, like super8 movie cameras and analog synths.
I think people like to play whilst being high because it makes everthing really rewarding as your senses collide.
Try playing theremin high, now that really is something!
could a joke be any worse? no.
i agree with what godzilla says. pretty much every knob had 1 function. things were easy to understand and the process of soundmaking was limited.
today, every parameter has subparameters which have 4 layers of subparameters. aaargh! too many parameters! must.. shut… down.. bzzz. klunk.
i think what i’d like to see is the introduction of instruments that have only musical parameters, and virtually no technical ones.
before playing…
pianos need tuning.
guitars need new strings.
with a flute you need to empty the spit receptacle.
many synths are sdifferent:
with a synth you need to update an os, program 1000 sounds, build in a new contraption for new functions, make sure you have a pc for up- and downloading new information, you need to have electricity, it has to have cables connected to a speaker, amp, mixer, headphones. you need software, extra hardware, etc etc etc. many synthesizers look horrible. look at a balalaika. what a pretty thing! or a cello! the moog is more aesthetic. but read the forums. update to new os - no sounds. problems with this. problams with that. how do i do this? where can i find info on that. ask this man. ask that man. the original documentation is lacking anmany ways. ship the instrument for upgrades, repairs. pay more money to this guy. pay delivery costs to that guy. who is going to deal with the rest of life with al this stuff going on? next thing, you have a divorce on top of your headache.
software per se, although graphically usefully crafted, is the most visually unappealing instrument. every single one is ugly in my opinion. i have yet to see a beautiful and simple, yet well-designed and intuitive piece of software. they are, as far as i have experienced so far, complicated and prone to conflict or bring up problems at some point.
why does everything have to be so complicated? keep it simple. make room for music. encourage the player to make nice sounds with the instrument.
can you imagine going to a restaurant, ordering a meal, and the cook comes out and brings you only side dishes and a little camping stove so you can cook the rest of the stuff yourself? and allows you to upgrade to the consumption of wine for a fee, but offers only one glass for a party of three? that’s what music making feels like with most electronic equipment these days, in my experience. you have to pay for each part of the meal with a separate bill, you register as a member with the restaurant. you have to have passwords, usernames, type in a pin number into a device the cook doesn’t even master himself.
and at the end of the night, you want to jump from the balcony for sheer frustration.
ecch.
still waiting for that fun, well-designed, easy-to-use musical instrument that encourages me to practice and play. and only needs the odd new button or re-tuning every 2-5 years.
First of all, digital is fine for what digital does… it’s very powerful, it’s very diverse. The argument shouldn’t be over whether analog is better than digital, but rather why digital doesn’t do what digital does best, which is NOT emulating analog.
I rail against digital… but only against digital as analog. Digital is more POWERFUL than analog, more diverse, etc. But analog has that original sound that appeals to some.
I personally use synthesizers as synthesizers… that thing that they began as… and frankly, analog still does that original sound better. Some people use synthesizers to emulate acoustic instruments (which I think is a bit on the… um… well, I just don’t agree with it)… and in that case, a digital synthesizer is WAY better. (still not nearly as good as a sampler, or as the real thing, though… much like digital emulating analog) And, other people use synthesizers to create very complex sounds that don’t occur in nature… and in this day and age, digital is better for that, too.
So, that being said… another aspect that is rarely mentioned in regard to the analog vs. digital debate is user control and musicianship. A modern digital synthesizer is NOT a difficult instrument to play… because it is designed to make it the easiest possible for the user to sound like their favourite techno group or whatever. All it takes is to press the right button, and pow… you’re set… fantastic sounds that can even be arpeggiated, etc. with no effort on your part at all.
That’s great, and everything… but everyone who uses synths like that sounds exactly like very one else who does… because the synth itself is doing the work. Some programmer in California is designing your patch for you, making it easy to access, and then PLAYING it for you, too.
Analog synthesizer players, and especially modular players, often employ a lot of effort, skill, knowledge, and creativity to operate their instruments, as well as play them.
I prefer analog because when someone hears my playing, they know that it is me who created the patch, and it is my fingers and my intent that are creating the music. (that and, of course, I prefer analog sound!)
Everyone always rants about how elitist it is to expect a quality instrument played effectively or creatively by a creative or skilled person… and I’d like to turn that around. Perhaps it’s time to rail against the people who think that being a keyboard player means you bought the cheapest and most convenient thing you could find, let it do what it is programmed to do, and expect respect for it. : )
There are no violin players who use software violins. : )
i couldn’t have put it better than museslave.
the aspect of musicianship is not a hot topic so much when talking about developing and using music technology. it’s about the bits, bytes, ram, functions, capacities. not about the thing we call fingerspitzengefühl in german. delicacy, grace, and talent. the human way of being.
digital equipment is based on the concept of programming. someone programmed your operating system, your presets, the arpeggio patterns. someone has defined the resolution of your sound. someone has predefined the general midi sound table. someone has programmed the numbers and digits.
ok, analog equipment has its limits too, and has its range that’s predefined by the manufacturers. (modular systems are different too in that they can be as simple or complex as the user wants or can afford)
to me, however, the most important thing i am looking for in any given instrument ist the unpretentiousness with which it has been manufactured.
a musical instrument should serve the sole purpose of making music. not of expanding, taking apart, perfecting, manipulating.
a synthesizer should be simple, inviting, expressive and you should be able to have a relationship with it in the same way you can with a guitar or a flute.
most importantly, it should bring joy to the audience and player alike. it should enable a person to produce pleasing or expressive or just good, fun sounds.
it should not deter a musician from playing.
just like a guitar that has a bent neck resulting in half an inch of space between the strings and the wood, or a flute that has not been built properly so that it is never in tune with the whole range of notes of other accompanying instruments, a synthesizer must be built with a musician’s needs in mind. and not with the idea that a manufacturer should produce a system so that the customer gets hooked and is forced to buy many components just to make the instrument work to its full extent.
an instrument should be self contained to the highest degree.
plutarch has stated this:
“the mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled”
i think he was right.
a musical instrument, although a material thing, should be built considering that, when played, it should not get in the way of the musician. it should become an extension of the musician’s voice or emotions. it should, in a a way, vanish. an instrument should kindle your light, not just fill your studio, be an object of desire for expansion and bragging or being loud or cool or something.
this works in the same way that an easy to use but well-designed camera seems to evade my consciousness when i look through the lens. all that counts is the picture. and if you accidentally shut it down for the 348th time just by pressing the shutter too fast, too slow or not according to some programmer’s ideas, the thing will end up in the garage sale.
an instrument should be like a good tool. it should do what it’s designed for, in a simple, unobtrusive way. the difference between a good instrument and a bad one is the same between a well-written original novel and a badly translated technical manual or user’s guide. one gives you ideas, thoughts, and teaches you things that will stay with you. the other creates more trouble than you need. the intention of translating a manual may be good, but you end up with unanswered questions, a frizzy mind and frustration.
maybe, a bit of philosophy is a good thing. unfortunately, we live in a world in which goods have to be marketed, deadlines and commitments have to be met.
well, maybe some manufacturers can kindle a light or two.
I’d certainly agree with much of what Museslave has said, but I’d question a couple of things:
Of course this is ofen true. But it doesn’t have to be that way, and the problem isn’t with the instrument but with the players. I play the Roland V Synth, which has quite a sophisticated arpeggiator. But no one makes me imitate techno stuff, or anything else anyone’s ever played before, even if the technology may have been designed with that in mind. The same goes for the arpeggiators in some of my softsynths. In fact I have patches that most people probably wouldn’t even realise use an arpeggiator, because the arpeggiator becomes an element of the sound and not a trick to play lots of notes by holding a key down.
Yes, it certainly is time to question that, and in fact it’s overdue. There’s been an attitude to synthesisers for decades now that assumes you aren’t actually playing the instrument. Wendy Carlos had that attitude to contend with from the beginning, and Roger Waters mentions it in one of the interviews included with Pink Floyd at Pompeii.
The best way to deal with it is to sit that person in front of a synth and say “go on, play it then.” And then show them how you really play. The next best is to explain how real music is played, and what the difference is.
BUT the issue isn’t softsynths. I know some people - many people - use them as plug-ins and program the notes, but like the digital synths with arpeggiators they don’t have to be used that way. I could just as easily sit someone in front of my softsynths and say “go on, play it then” as I could with my hardware analogue synths, because the software is a sound generator played from a keyboard and from the performance controls.
So yes, I agree very much, but I definitely don’t go along with the implication that softsynths per se and some of the features on digital synths are for people who don’t really play.
Wow, this is all really deep and I think I have a much simpler view on the whole thing. My studio is my sonic playground. I have filled it with fun, useful and musical tools/toys. All of a which are at my disposal at any time to use in any combination I want. Often I put digital machines through analog filters. Sometimes I’ll use pre-programmed sequences to trigger my Voyager. I’ll use my Jup6 as a midi contoller for my soft synths. I’ll use a casio drum beat instead of samples. I play a lead on a stylophone instead of a synth.
It’s my kingdom! I paid for it and I will use anything I want to get the sounds I want. Music has no rules (thank god) and neither does gear purchases. If you “get along” with a piece of gear and it sounds good to you. Then put it in your playground and enjoy! The end.
word to drawtippy indeed…
digital or not, if you can get into it & have fun & do what you want/need to do, then that’s something you want to keep in your sonic palette. Know what I mean??
I have a Boss Phaser which I’m sure is digital, but I get some wicked sh*t outta that green box that I don’t get from my MF103…the 103 being a fantastic phaser though, don’t get me wrong…but they are almost different instruments altogether… If you like hiphop, I was reading that the RZA (Wu-Tang master producer) used a Nord Lead on almost all the early Wu albums…and that stuff is classic…but that insrument and its sounds worked for him…gave him what he wanted from it.
If it don’t suit your palette, get rid of it & try something else! Even the hunt for the ‘right’ gear is synthesis! You know, putting all the right ingredients together.
Anyways, just have fun!!!
well said!
You can say it over and over again “I use whatever I like, and don’t care whether it’s digital, analog, acoustic, or etc. The most important thing is that you’re having fun,” or “that you’re making cool music” or, etc.
Those things are largely true, but they aren’t the point I’m addressing. : )
Playing a software synth that mimics a modular, yet gives you patches, convenience, stability etc. may give you really cool sounds… sure… so will a Korg Triton, etc. My point is that you personally did not construct those sounds, some technician somewhere did. You didn’t labor over how the filter should be set, what degree PWM should occur, or whether using S&H to subtly alter the filter, etc. You also did not work your butt off to be able to afford that modular. You also have not spent hours, days, months learning the function of each component. You have not honed your patching skill to create exactly the sounds you personally require to suit the music you’re writing. If those things don’t matter to you, that’s cool… but when those things DO matter to you, it shows that you’re committed to your craft, as opposed to having fun making cool noises with a device that makes cool noises if your cat sits on it.
Okay, so maybe you’re a person between the two polar opposites I’m talking about, yeah… I’m not accusing anyone… my point is merely to create a distinction between the people who choose musical instruments that they learn to control and implement skillfully and musically, as opposed to the great deal of consumer-grade musicians who buy what companies offer, make the cool sounds with them that the machines make regardless of user, and consider that to be the same thing.
It’s true… a great musician could make great music with a comb and tissue paper… it’s just that you don’t see the UNgreat musicians trying with a comb and tissue paper… you see them trying with the consumer-geared music technology designed to greatly reduce the necessity for skill and talent.
God, I sound harsh… I don’t mean to sound harsh… I’m just sad to see the difference between musician and consumer computer user blurred like it is SO much with keyboard players… unlike with any other musical instrument.
No, no, no, simply not true. I use software synths all the time, and so far I’ve never used another person’s patch.
On the other hand people use the Moog Voyager and use other people’s patches. It’s down to the player, not the instrument.
You’re making some good points, but you’re also introducing some totally spurious ones. Do you have some problem with softsynths for some reason? I know they can be used unimaginatively. But so can any synth with memories. Memories are incredibly useful for cutting out pointless labour when you’re using your own sounds. Who amongst us would choose not to have memories if they were available, whether on softsynths or hardware? I wish my MS20 had them.
i would not mind at all to have a moog synth without memories. i find that although i have some patches ready to go on my mmv i never really use them the way they’re stored. my stored patches bore me. but the discovery of new sounds never does. that’s the story with the moog.
every session with it (the mmv, the rogue or any analog, patchmemoryless synth) is unique. the sounds i make on it (but also an any other board such as the rogue) are unique. i don’t need the memory at all. if i need a sweep i dial it in in a few seconds. a long sine, a short blip, a squeak, a hiss of wind, a clunky metal thing: whatever it is, the main fun part of analog synthesis is the magic of the unknown, discovering things and not keeping them. even after playing for 3 hours and exploring sound to the extreme, i wouldn’t even bother saving the sound, no matter how beautiful or crazy it is. it’ll all come back. have a little trust in the magic of it! maybe it’s just oldskool crap, but who says it’s wrong? no one.
that’s what makes synthesis so fascinating. if the moment’s gone, it’s gone forever. but who cares, another moment is just around the corner. nothing is ever lost forever.
i don’t like sw synths, but that’s a personal choice. i am sure there are some out there that rock. but they don’t do it for me. i also don’t like working with compter screens because they tire my eyes a lot. hence also my dislike for displays, computer addons, updating operating systems and the like. a few hours of playing with a synth seem to be almost therapeutic for my eyes. i work with computers all day so the last thing i want at night is a silly screen. as i said, that’s my own choice, and i am certain that other musicians will get great things out of sw.
i tried out some sw products but non of them suited me. i guess i am the pickiest person when it comes to software… they all disappoint me.
i really don’t see the point of the hardware update in 3.1 to have 7 zillion spaces to store sounds. i find that unnecessary. ok, most will like that option, and for live gigging it has its value. but in my opinion it kind of, somehow puts the tweakery, the real moog magic, the mystery and the joy of discovery of something fragile and fleeting on the backburner. why is that? i don’t get it.
sometimes i think that the growing availability of memory is greed-inducing. like the game of “memory”. you find one pair, you want more, more, more.
what’s wrong with letting things pass? does every sound we make have to be stored and kept? and if you make and keep 1000 sounds, will they really all be different or will they somehow repeat themselves or just be variations of each other? sure, they’ll all be different, some even quite amazingly extremely different. but at the end of the day, storing a sound is like caging a beautiful bird. it’ll want to fly away anyway.
I agree that a talented musician is special compared to a wannabe. I know a lot of digital gear is set up for quick starting, but that doesn’t mean you are forced to use it. Digital synths and soft synths can be programmed and require a relationship just like analog if the player is earnest about learning.
There are definitely way more people that are posers trying to impress people than students trying to constantly improve and create instead of copying. There’s aline from the Little Women movie where the main character says something like, “…we’re just making a mediocre copy of another man’s genius.” That can be a good way to get started and learn as many guitarists and drummers do too, but if the musician doesn’t press on then what’s the point?
Anywho, I have a Triton and a Voyager and the Voyager has been a lot easier to learn than the Triton. If all of your gear is used for what it’s good for, using a mix of VA, digital, sampler, soft synth, analog, and acoustic gives a lot more depth to a composition than using any one by itself.