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. : )
new synth vs. vintage
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.
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:
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.
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.museslave wrote: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.
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.museslave wrote: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. : )
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.
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!!!
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!!!
MPC3000, MF-101, 102, 103, 104Z, 105M, 108m, 107, CP-251, MINI MODEL D, OB-8, ALESIS A6, ARP ODYSSEY MK1, RHODES MK1
Elitist Bastard
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.
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.
www.youtube.com/user/automaticgainsay
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic
Re: Elitist Bastard
No, no, no, simply not true. I use software synths all the time, and so far I've never used another person's patch.museslave wrote: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. [etc]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mark Mahoney
http://www.reverbnation.com/markmahoney
www.cdbaby.com/cd/mmahoneympeck
www.cdbaby.com/cd/markmahoney
http://www.reverbnation.com/markmahoney
www.cdbaby.com/cd/mmahoneympeck
www.cdbaby.com/cd/markmahoney
-
this_poison
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:15 pm
- Location: Shropshire, UK
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).
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).
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).
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).
Re: Elitist Bastard
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.Sweep wrote:No, no, no, simply not true. I use software synths all the time, and so far I've never used another person's patch.
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!Sweep wrote:You're making some good points,
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.Sweep wrote:but you're also introducing some totally spurious ones. Do you have some problem with softsynths for some reason?
They make it EASY for them to be used unimaginitively. : )Sweep wrote: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.
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.Sweep wrote:Who amongst us would choose not to have memories if they were available, whether on softsynths or hardware? I wish my MS20 had them.
www.youtube.com/user/automaticgainsay
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic