From: bmara...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l,rec.music.synth Subject: synthesizers and sounds Message-ID: <1991Jan25.111129.6301@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Date: 25 Jan 91 11:11:29 GMT References: Organization: Unit 36 Research Lines: 131 In article Electronic Music Discussion List writes: >> would say that the opposite is largely true - you can get more character >> and personality out of a good analogue synth than out of a good digital >> synth. >> > >I'm well-known on this list as a curmudgeonly old analog-head whose lack of >respect for digital synthesis in general was legendary. I say "was" because I could say something here... but I won't. >of the recent Team Metlay sessions in Pittsburgh, during which time my old >Xpander and Prophet T8 shared mix space with three Kurzweil racks, a DX7IIFD, >and a D-110 and D-50, among other digital boxes-- and I learned firsthand >that there are no boring/stale/cliched/silly/just-plain-BAD synths; there >are only boring/stale/cliched/silly/just-plain-lazy SYNTHESISTS. Anyone with I am one of those people who erase the factories when I get a new machine. I did that with my D70. When i got my sampler 2 weeks ago I reformatted the 35 library disks that came with it. It seems that this sort of behavior drops many a jaw, more so these days than in years before. But, what do i get from this? Well, I become a master of the musical instruments I own. Metlay is correct. There are no boring/stale/etc Synths, but there is an awful lot of broring/stale/cliched/silly/and just plain BAD music out there (specifically, in electronic music). This is my biggest problem with the 'new age' thing. Most real 'new age' (I do not place a number of 'new age' characterized bands in the 'new age' stream) music fits the adjectives Metaly describes. I recently listened to a Private Music sampler and there was a particular person on that whose music was very uninspiring and was everything about 'new age' that I oppose. I shant mention who it was, but I have never heard more trite and banal harmonies and melodies in my life. And all the sounds were recognizable factories, which doesn't help. Even Tangerine Dream, my biggest influence, has a number of songs on 'Melrose' that contain blatant factories used in a stale very ininspired way. This is all very depressing. Back to sounds and synths. A synthesizer, no matter what it might be, if it is capable of producing sound, even if the sound comes from smacking the case with a hammer, is a valid musical instrument. No synthesizer is obsolete in terms of music. In terms of technology, sure, but this is not and should not be an issue for you... you are a musician, not a computer programmer. Be obsessed with the sound your machines are capable of producing not the sounds that they can produce. This is very important, so read that last sentence again. What I am saying is, if your synth is capable of producing a particular sounds when you select patch A1-1, do not use that sound. Instead, move beyond that sounds and let it inspire a new sound, through your own experimentation, and you will have something that is truly yours and definitely more interesting. Factory sounds result in factory music - mass produced and similar (ie. cliche). Sythesis is a craft and an art; there are no two paintings that are the same, and the most interesting paintings are those that use different hues and brush strokes. But, unlike painting, the tools of sythesis are based on current high technology and it is very difficult to move beyond the machine. >a bit of commitment can make any synth sound good, unless there's an inherent >flaw in its sonic specs (e.g. a S/N ratio of 35 dB). I heard a DX7 do silky, >convincing strings, and a D-50 emit any number of fascinating crystal-clear >sound effects I would've been proud to get on my Xpander, and so on-- I got >a lot of respect for those boxes in a tearing big hurry because I was hearing >not the factory sounds but what these people could DO. Even a flaw in sonic specs can be used in a creative inspired manner. As an example, Trent Reznor gets some really very powerful sounds from the Emax by transposing down so that the grundgy Emax clock is audible. This is a good example. As is my friend Nash the Slash, who still uses his old Coloursound Fuzz on the D50. Remember, if it creates a sound, directly or indirectly, it can be used as a musical instrument and it's use will only be as interesting and relevant as the inspiration of the musician using it. I grant you, it is very very difficult to move beyond the machine. As the new technology comes out and is utilized in the new synthesizers it becomes increasingly harder to 'see' the music hidden by the machine. > >BUT! >"Purer"? >In a raw mathematical sense, yes, definitely. Fourier says so. But I think When I listen to music I prefer to listen to MUSIC. If I want mathematics I will pull out a journal article or text book. Purity in a mathematical sense as a descrition of sound is a moot argument and I prefer not to hear any music created by someone who is obsessed with the purity (mathematical purity, as Metlay describes) of his/her synth. >my definition of "character" and yours are different; I think most digital >boxes have character of their own, just like analog boxes do-- it's just >that the character they have is of a different sort. I think that the idea >that it's inherently "flimsier" and more subject to being buried by the user >is not true. An Xpander programmed by Dan Barrett sounds very little like an >Xpander programmed by Kurt Geisel, or by me. The limitation is not in the >anlog/digital CHARACTER of the machine... In my opinion it's in the linkage >of the machine to the user. It's easier to get certain types of sounds on >every synth than others, because certain ways of working with sound lend them- >selves differently to certain machines. I suspect that even a "pure" box >like the GDS lends itself more to certain sounds than others. To say that >analog synths muscle in on the user's character and digital synths sit wimpily >back and let the user go, is a dangerously misleading overgeneralization. I can only paraphrase that that paragraph. I shant bother, for brevity. Needless to say I agree with the entire content. If these are Metlay's philosophies that I look forward to hearing his music. What Metlay says here is very important and these are ideas that do not come easily. > >Final point of counterexample, to think on for any replies my babble might >generate: I own two machines, and will soon own a third, that are evenly >split down the middle between analog and digital: they were advertised as >"digital" instruments when that was a buzzword, but mostly they're analog. >They are a Korg EX-8000, a Prophet VS, and a Korg DSS-1. Where do they fit >in? ("Well, the VS has character, and the WS doesn't, so--" "Shaddup, Nick.") No synth is better or worse than another. If you argue this point then you are missing the point. If you argue this point then your music is probably stale/cliche/etc. If you argue this point, you have not risen or do not have the inclination to rise above mediocrity in the realm of electronic music (...specifically, but this point can extend to all music). I do not judge you, only your music. There is far too much 'BAD' electronic music out there, far far too much. I urge you, pull the plug on the factories, erase the library disks, start from scratch. Sure, your music production will be slower and will take more effort, but the music you create will reflect the effort. brett L maraldo Plexus Productions 'Where analogue meets digital... and wins!' <- maybe i should change this :-) -- -------- Unit 36 Research --------- "Alien Technology Today" bmara...@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo