new synth vs. vintage

The Moog Forum Moog Music General Topics Forum
41

Yes, I’d agree about the magic of the moment. On the other hand, having memories can be a godsend if you’re working on a track and you lay something down and then add something else, and after that you need to develop the piece further by adding more of the original part. Having to reprogram each sound and match it to what you did before really gets in the way of the spontanaity of creativity.

I think it all depends on how you work. If you just do one part complete and then lay down the next part complete you can manage much more easily without memories than if you build in the way I described just now.

It’s also the case that you might not immediately know how you’re going to use a sound. I’ve often saved sounds that have potental, and gone back and tweaked them to exactly what the music needs when I’ve known how they’re going to be played.

In any case, if you develop a sound as you play it, the patch is only a starting point anyway.

All credit to the people here who do everything on the fly. That’s definitely far better than just using other people’s programming. But there’s also a middle way between those two extremes, and using memories doesn’t inevitibly have to involve a loss of creativity.

I was looking closely at a couple of Wendy Carlos’ patch notes for the Moog modular the other day (there are a couple in the booklet with the Switched On Box Set). In this forum I don’t need to stress how creative she is and how much a virtuoso synth player. But she noted down patches because the nature of her work required them. If someone like that notes down patches (and with the advent of patch memories saves her work) I certainly don’t feel any disgrace doing the same. Nor do I have any qualms about learning from someone of her stature, though I’d never simply lift one of her patches and use it in my music because my music is different and needs different sounds. So in addition to the practical use of one’s own patch memories when writing music, other people’s patches can be part of the process of learning and discovery, so long as we take the time to understand them and develop them rather than just ripping them off. I’ve been playing synths for a quarter of a century, and I have no problems learning from others and responding to their ideas. It can be like a two-way conversation - listen, respond, develop, discover something new between you.

42

I love digital synths, software synths and my Voyager. I rarely ever use a patch that comes with the synth. But sometimes I’ll look at how one was made to learn a trick or two. I’m shocked how many people demand lots of presets on their synths, but I guess most people are either perplexed or don’t want to take the time to learn synthesis. They want the instant gratification of a preset.

I use my own presets almost exclusively. Sometimes I’ll be in a tweak mood and just create some presets I’ll use in the future. Thank goodness you can save them. What a great convenience. Otherwise I bet I would forget how I made some or how they sounded. And when performing live being able to quickly go to a patch is more than convenient. And when I go to one of my presets, I’m still tweaking it in performance. I don’t understand why anyone would not like the ablilty to store patches. And I don’t understand why anyone would close their minds to digital/software synths. If it makes a noise, then I’m interested. You have to judge it for what it is and not for what it isn’t.

43

I’m sort of in the middle on the patch memories thing.

I won’t be getting a V3 board for my SE, because I don’t want or need that many patches on board. I do however download all those I can, and one of every 20 or so leaves me thinking “how the hell have they done that” or “why does tweaking that do this”. - It helps my learn and explore.

I store them all offline, so that what’s in my SE is probably 75% mine and 25% others.

I find that creating sounds and creating music are two distinct moods for me.

I can sit for hours with any of my synths and mess about with sound - often I switch off and lose the lot. I therefore love the fact that a Voyager or OSCar at least allow my to store my doodles. I don’t mind that an Oddysey doesn’t, but I do lose sounds (although oddly I often find that even with patch memories, things sound significantly better or worse the next session than I remember when programming!)

On the other hand, when playing, recording or composing I just cannot break that mood to fiddle with sounds - then I’m not afraid to admit, it always starts with Pianos, Romplers, Favourite patches (mine or otherwise) and Computers (drum loops and midi/cv).

Sure I’ll go back and swop sounds - replace Romplers with 6Rs, VAs with As, vanilla patches with tweaked or new sounds - but my brain can’t do it all at once.

Patch memories therefore mean a lot to me…but a few are enough.

(And as for dialling up sounds, I might be down to less than a minute on an SH09, SH101, Juno 6 or similar, but a Voyager, OSCar or Oddyssey? - let alone a modular - forget it. They’re much to deep for that with my brain).
:unamused:

44

another aspect of analog synthesis with moog instruments is that a player kind of creates different instruments and often ends up with a few basic groups of sounds that each demand a certain style of playing.

so if you have a flutelike sound, a lead sound or a bass, you’ll probably play them as such. meaning that with a flute, you want to introduce embellishments or breath pauses. with a bass you’ll go bap-baboop, bopp-babapp.

if is do store patches, that’s the starting point: create a template for certain groups. so leads would have a long sustain and a short attack or sth., bass would have 3 oscs and some kind of bweouw filter setting, or a brassy sound would have a specific basic setting.

but that’s just luxury to me and i really enjoy doodling endlessly with sounds from scratch (or from a totally unrelated sound), and i don’t care if they get undialled again.

i find that, the way i play, the next sound always is fine tweaked according to what’s already there, so every new sound that goes into the mix is crafted as a response to the existing ones.

i think the main point of my way of thinking is that you need a basic sound that suits the appropriate playing style or place in the orchestration (we synthesists are usually used to thinking like different instrumentalists) and then concentrate on perfecting technique. i practice a lot with music itself, practicing figures, phrases, modes, lines, riffs etc, until i like what i am doing, and if my moogs gave me one thing, it’s beautifully responsive sounds i could play with, the way i want them to sound.

toggling through presets and using them for actual songs is sth in only would do if i were pressed for time or i am travelling with my qy. i use the presets on my qy sequencer, but for that instrument it makes sense because there’s no synth in there. and every sound does get some treatment anyway. the qy is a great composing tool that allows the player to concentrate on composition and gives them fairly usable sounds and quite a powerful midi environment.

the moogs on the other hand are performance instruments, and i love doing just that: playing and practicing.

back to the preset thing: they serve their purpose, and no matter who programmed them, they do show the sonic potential of an instrument (and / or the programming prowess of the player/programmer). it’s basically a show-off mode. and that can be fun, too. especially in the sfx dept. but when performance comes into the game, you don’t need a lot of time to dial in sth very usable and expressive.

the mmv is indeed a very deep instrument, and to get wilder, goofier sounds out of it, you need a bit of time and experience. i find though that the wilder, weirder sounds don’t matter that much. when you’re trying to make a melody work, i think it’s better to practice the melody than to add swirls or swooshes right into the sound just to make it more complex. that’ts where the mmv has a bit too much depth for my taste, or let’s say, its depth is not in the knobbery and jacks you can see, but somewhere in the innards. (pot mapping, operating system etc)

if you ask me, the depth is a bit discouraging. not because i would not want to dig deeper into it, but because it looks and feels inaccessible. you have to look stuff up quite a lot (as some functions are absolutely unobvious), check out double functions of knobs, press little buttons and squint into a little tiny screen. thanks, but no thanks.

where there’s programming involved, i always feel that that takes too much time away from the actual music making process (=basic tweaking, advanced practicing and ultimately playing/recording).

45

You’re right, let me retract part of what I’m saying… those people who implement software synths in a fashion without using the presets should not be included in my complaint.
However, I still suggest that software, with all of its convenience, stability, low-cost, and digital sound is not the same experience as a hardware modular.

Thanks!

Yes, actually, I do! First, because they don’t exist. Second, because they are aimed (largely) at the consumer market and are hyped because of all of the aspects that make them NOT what they are emulating. But primarily because users of them feel strangely compelled to demand that they are the very same experience and sound of using the REAL synths… and I disagree with that.


They make it EASY for them to be used unimaginitively. : )
I agree that memory is VERY convenient… but presets are the devil’s tool. : )
Yes, anyone can use whatever they want, and still have creative output, even when they are using presets… I merely contest the notion that using a preset and labouring over creating a good patch are the same thing.

Unfortunately, memory is usually a digital function, and I like to keep computers out of my synthesizers… but I’ll admit, I would enjoy memory on more complicated synths I have, like the Korg PS-3100. Memory is great… but memory is not the same as presets, despite presets using memory.

46

I find the MMV too distracting; moving from one view to the other. I enjoy having all the REAL knobs sitting right in front of me, ready to be tweaked when I want them. Switching from window to window messes up the creative moment for me, which is undoubtedly a personal thing.

Also, having too many presets can be distracting–how many presets do you have to preview to find “just the right sound” for your needs? On something like Reason, where you can choose between different samplers and different synths, it can constipate you instead of free up your creativity. It is definitely better to learn how to create your own sounds to fit what you hear in your head.

On the other hand, what I like about presets is that in hearing one, it can suddenly spark an idea in your head and you can run with it from there. Just last night, I had very little time to play, so I just sat at my Andromeda and started playing different programs and mixes. Many gave me great ideas for new material that I will be working on for weeks to come.

47

[etc]

Yes, I think between us we’re establishing something. In particular I think you’ve hit the nail precisely on the head when you distinguish between patch memories and presets. It’s the use of presets that makes for a lazy and non-creative attitude to synth playing. With that in mind I’d return to my point about the player’s attitude. I think it’s crucial that patches don’t get dumbed down into presets. A patch becomes a preset when it’s used blindly and uncreatively.

I’d agree that marketing tends to aim at the preset mentality. But really, that’s where much of the market is. That’s unfortunate in one way, but the fact that there is such a market keeps prices down and makes it easier for the creative ones amongst us to afford these instruments. The fact that something like the Arturia Modular V has so many creative possibiities for those of us who are willing and motivated to explore them makes that instrument worthwhile. It’s cheap and widely available because a lot of unimaginative people will buy it as well, but that really needn’t concern us. I think if the design of an instrument is poor because it’s aimed at the preset mentality then we’re losing something, but if the design is open enough for us to really make creative use of it then it doesn’t matter what other people do.

Wide avilability will always mean more bad music. But it also increases the amount of good music. people who could never have afforded a Moog modular now have something approaching one, even if it isn’t quite the same as the `real’ thing. I know one very creative and talented synth player who’s been pushing back the boundaries for decades, starting with the earliest analogue monosynths. He’s never been in the Moog modular financial bracket but he now has the Arturuia and I look forward very much to what he’s going to do with it. The fact is, that piece of software has given a great musician something he wouldn’t otherwise have had access to.

I’m sure the Modular V isn’t the same as having a hardware Moog modular. It crossed my mind to consider if I could raise the 20,000 Euros that Klaus Schulze was asking for his Moog modular, but I decided I couldn’t. But I’m very glad the Modular V gives me at least some approach to the same sonic areas. It adds tremendously to what my Voyager can do.

I agree with TheWaag as well about the incovenience of having to scroll between screens when using the Modular V. On the other hand, Klaus’ modular wouldn’t have fitted into my studio and would have had to sit in an adjoining room, so maybe things are never really rosy. At the end of the day I’d much rather scroll between screens to access more sonic possibilities than not need to scroll between screens because there are no more options on the next screen. Nothing is perfect. And I’d rather have something imperfect that I can use than know there was something perfect somewhere else that I’d never have access to.

In a perfect world there’d be a massive Moog modular that my studio would contain comfortably. It’d be polyphonic, have patch memories, and be ultra-stable. But that just isn’t going to happen, and the Modular V comes a reasonably close second.

I can’t see the original post from here, but I wonder, is the real question behind this discussion as it’s now developed something like:

Why do so many synth players today want everything to be given to them for nothing? And did we get better music when people had to work harder to make a sound from a synth?

Please amend that version of the question or throw it out if it isn’t helpful. For my part, I think that attitude has always been there, but it seems to have reached epic proportions today. In music it’s not only a synth problem, but also a problem with looping and cut and paste software that promises the abilitry to make music without any creative effort. And that really is a false promise, because music simply doesn’t exist without creative effort. But again, for every creative musician there’ll be a multitude of posers and copyists.

I do wish more younger people were creating innovative new music, though. I’m sure I’ve reached an age where I should need to make an effort to understand the new ideas of the next generation.

48

Geez, you guys need to get off the internet and turn on your Moogs! :slight_smile:

49

Oysterrock, you’re right. A day without my Mini powered up at least ONCE is a day wasted. : )

50

that was me 6 weeks ago. sold the micro and replaced with a voyager. i thought the nord was a good synth ( and it still is) but the voyager is so much better!

51

Funny stuff. I thought i might be alone in worshipping Moog. I guess i don’t need perscription medications afterall. :laughing:

52

WHat about the vintage analogue that were digitally controlled? :open_mouth:

53

Yeah and how do I get my Voyager to sound digital?

54

Just kidding…

Anyway, I think the best place for analogue gear is LIVE! I say this because you could have a lovely Voyager patch, but when you record it, unless you’re using reel to reel, (anyone?) you’ve instantly gone A → D.

Live on the on the other hand, everything is on the line. With the right system, a Moog will fill up a room/whatever in a way that only an analogue synth can.

I don’t like it how digital “invents” the sound between samples. And analogue emulating digitals really only add low level distortion and saturation, as far as I know of course.

Come to think of it, if digitals are so good, why must they emulate analogues?

55

I like it when companies just slap the word digital on a product to make it sound better. 9 out of 10 times that product would be better analog (ie- cameras, video cameras, music devices, etc.)

Reel to reel tape recently went out of production, correct?

56

Yep, a good example could be Boss delays. The red (analogue) ones were called “Delay.” Then the digital ones came out and were called “Digital Delay.” Funny they didn’t call it “Analog Delay…” Oh well.

57

vintage

58

Great thread, even though it’s really really old. :laughing: I particularly liked the comment about the Rolakorgaha. :laughing: I totally have to build one just to say I have one. Thanks to Music-Go-Round, I can probably do it for less than a grand. I’ll need a Roland, Korg, and Yamaha, probably a PSR model, and in typical circuit bending fashion, wire them all together. If I REALLY want to go all out I can build a Rolankorgnordaha. Or even a Casiokorgnordrolanaha. :laughing:

59

Old kit has a halo effect. Bands we loved used the gear and we lusted after it, wanted it.

But there’s a funny thing.

You notice how violins and stuff haven’t really changed much?

Analogue synths are like that.

Digital stuff has continued to improve. Nord Leads are not as good as modern Nords or other VA synths. Many VA synths ARE rendered obsolete.

So people may still lust after an analogue Moog; my Voyager and etc. would cost £3,000 new now; that’s a lot of scratch as some people would say, and at the risk of heresy, I reckon my Virus can do more and most of what the Voyager does. It’s not as nice to use and there’s that final bit, but in a mix… eh, who’s going to know. The Voyager is for the performer, the other stuff, it’s for the producer.

After years of genuinely classic gear, some worthless, some not, I made a decision. I’m not a curator. I’m not a historian. I just want to play keyboards.

Same thing happened with my cars and now I have a new one with a warranty.

I love my Moog, though :smiley:

60

I think what your looking for is the voyager old school…that they are discontinuing :cry:

And as for the new vs old debate, none of my synths are really new but I have my analog (micro moog) , analog/digital hybrid (korg poly800) and digital (casio cz5000) they all continue to inspire me in different ways. I started off as kind of an analog snob but have found a deep appreiciation for digital synths (some of them). Each synth can do something one of the other can’t. So new vs old. Who wins? Who ever learns to enjoy an instrument for what it is , and not for what name badge is painted or glued on to it