Are the supposed endless sonic capabilities of synths overrated and exhausted?

[Stokely]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

True.

 

Budget is a very real consideration for most musical situations. Hence my last paragraph.

 

That's also why composers and Broadway pit music directors still use old Kurzweil KBs. The orchestral sounds are good enough.

 

Just ask our brotha @Dave Weiser if/when he plans to swap out KBs for the latest Montage.😁😎

And that might say something...that's a pretty quiet and excellent listening environment (based on the two Broadway shows I've seen).   Especially compared to the live venues a lot of us play in.   I've said it before, but I'll watch recorded videos of our band (granted, usually from a phone, but sometimes from a Zoom or Tascam) and at best I hear "essence of keyboard" wafting through in the background.  I could be playing an accordion sample from 1981 and it would come through about the same.  Hell the bands with biggest followings around here just run tracks and jump around like monkeys because that's what matters to cover band groupees apparently   

A bit more on topic but looking at software there is no shortage of sound manipulation and experimental "engines" that go far beyond the old subtractive days.  And then you consider the crazy effects that exist today, which can mangle and change any sound source into something alien.

[Tusker]

2 hours ago, Stokely said:

And then you consider the crazy effects that exist today, which can mangle and change any sound source into something alien.

 

When blending modeled instruments or samples with real horn or string players, I am increasingly finding that imaging tools like Expanse 3d can help narrow/locate my instruments so they don't hog the sound stage. Just a touch of early reflections will help the blend without creating a wall of sound or a reverb bath.

[AROIOS]

On 12/10/2023 at 6:02 AM, CyberGene said:

I've been thinking a lot about that common assumption of synths as an infinite playground where you can basically create any possible sound there is. And of course, there's always minute differences between all the zillions of patches on earth, especially taking in mind all possible synthesis methods, and different implementations, and different synth programmers, etc, etc. Even two Minimoogs won't sound exactly the same.

 

But then, if you look at all that from above, because that's how we listen to music, aren't all possible sounds actually a limited set of general sound types, like e.g. some synth brasses, brighter, duller, some more analog, some more digital, reso, no-reso, then strings, pads, leads, basses, bells, etc., etc. you name it, but ultimately a collection of, say, 1000 patches would cover the entire spectrum.

 

And it leads me to a common refrain by @ProfD about how the big manufacturers have been rehashing sounds on their romplers for ages. Well, yes, because what revolutionary new sounds there can be? 😉

Absolutely. Subtractive analog peaked in the early 80's, romplers peaked in the mid 90's. VA peaked in the early 2000s. Most stuff after the mid 2000s are just rehash of old sounds.

It's been years since I heard any patches that made me "wow" the same way I felt in the 80's~90's. That's why I've developed a habit of creating my own 80's/90's patches in recent years.

People often don't realize how powerful some old machines like the JV-1080 still are after 30 years. The JVs' only bottle neck is (was) their inability to replace Rom contents with your own samples. But now with re-programmable 3rd party SR-JV cards, you can inject a ton of new life into it.

[analogika]

On 12/11/2023 at 1:07 AM, ElmerJFudd said:

I think we are just looking at different charts and/or defining what a leading trend in pop looks like.  I don't see the “return to acoustic music I'm imagining might occur” in current pop charts hitting the widest audience.  What I do see is Doja Cat, SZA. Taylor Swift, Tate McRae, Smiley, Miley, Dua Lipa.  The top 40 continues to be very synthetic and heavily processed.  I do see an act, Elijah Woods, 24/7 365 that is sort of leaning away but the record has synths and autotune.  

 

Ah, I see. IMO, the Top 40 have become entirely meaningless in the age of instant worldwide distribution and streaming. With 60,000+ tracks released to Spotify every single day, the vast majority of music released in any given month might be fully acoustic and still find zero reference in the "charts". 

[analogika]

17 hours ago, AROIOS said:

Absolutely. Subtractive analog peaked in the early 80's

 

In music production? Maybe. There's probably 10x to 100x the number of actual subtractive analog synths sold each month today vs. their supposed "heyday", though. 

[CyberGene]

23 minutes ago, analogika said:

In music production? Maybe. There's probably 10x to 100x the number of actual subtractive analog synths sold each month today vs. their supposed "heyday", though.

Well, that’s an interesting phenomenon that I’ve observed too. There’s a huge interest in (vintage) analog synths and you can hear how YouTube reviews and audio demos are all about patches that sound “old”, or should we say nostalgic, yet you would basically hear no such sounds in any music production nowadays. It’s only the so called synthwave that got traction but first, it’s a niche genre for the same synth nerds, and second, it’s an imitation/revival genre, so not exactly a new application of vintage synth sounds. 
 

Which leaves us with people buying those modern analog synths out of nostalgia, because they lusted for them in the past but couldn’t afford them. And they can buy them now. 

[ProfD]

4 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

There’s a huge interest in (vintage) analog synths...yet you would basically hear no such sounds in any music production nowadays.

 

...it’s a niche genre for the same synth nerds, and second, it’s an imitation/revival genre, so not exactly a new application of vintage synth sounds. 
 

Which leaves us with people buying those modern analog synths out of nostalgia, because they lusted for them in the past but couldn’t afford them. And they can buy them now. 

Definitely a niche market. 

 

The heyday of synths in music production was the 1980s. 

 

Nowadays, the interest in synths is mainly folks with enough disposable income to indulge in nostalgia and/or hobbyists.

 

Otherwise, *synth sounds*  used in music production can be achieved from a number of cheaper sources (sampler, ROMpler or software).😎

[analogika]

3 hours ago, CyberGene said:

Well, that’s an interesting phenomenon that I’ve observed too. There’s a huge interest in (vintage) analog synths and you can hear how YouTube reviews and audio demos are all about patches that sound “old”, or should we say nostalgic, yet you would basically hear no such sounds in any music production nowadays. It’s only the so called synthwave that got traction but first, it’s a niche genre for the same synth nerds, and second, it’s an imitation/revival genre, so not exactly a new application of vintage synth sounds. 
 

Which leaves us with people buying those modern analog synths out of nostalgia, because they lusted for them in the past but couldn’t afford them. And they can buy them now. 

 

There is very likely more music being produced (and released) using analogue synthesisers than at ANY time in history. 

You're not hearing it, because 60,000+ new tracks a day released on Spotify. 

[jazzpiano88]

5 hours ago, ProfD said:

Definitely a niche market. 

 

The heyday of synths in music production was the 1980s. 

 

Nowadays, the interest in synths is mainly folks with enough disposable income to indulge in nostalgia and/or hobbyists.

 

Otherwise, *synth sounds*  used in music production can be achieved from a number of cheaper sources (sampler, ROMpler or software).😎

 

Dividing history a bit more granular.... Check out Morris Hayes interview on the Keyboard Chronicles Podcast.

 

As Prince's keyboardist, he did away with the Oberheims and ARPs (mainly due to unreliability and complexity) and did good enough with DCOs and linear to the point that Prince was astonished how he did so much with so little and made him his musical director.

 

[CyberGene]

4 hours ago, analogika said:

There is very likely more music being produced (and released) using analogue synthesisers than at ANY time in history. 

You're not hearing it, because 60,000+ new tracks a day released on Spotify. 

That’s a possibility too. We can only rely on algorithms (AI?) to hear new releases nowadays but it works by suggesting similar music to what you already have, so it’s kind of siloed…

[Anderton]

This is a very interesting thread. For new sounds, what works best for me often relates to sampling. This gives sounds that are familiar, yet different. For example on one song's solo line, I sampled guitar notes, cut off the initial attack, transposed the notes up an octave, loaded them in a sampler, and added effects. You couldn't detect the "guitar" roots, it sounded more like a trumpet, but it didn't sound like a ROMpler's trumpet at all.

 

I rarely use sampled sounds of "real" instruments anyway. I know a sax preset will never sound like John Coltrane. When I do use ROMpler-type sounds, I'll try to go at least a little into left field. In one song that needed a piano, I used the Kontakt Una Corda because it didn't sound like a conventional piano. Or, I'll transpose sounds and layer them. 

 

For synths my main "fun with new sounds" approach mostly relates to playing style. I've created quite a few synth patches with bogus "feedback." It doesn't sound like a feedback guitar, but it doesn't sound like a synth, either.

 

I guess I'm not so much into making new sounds that blow people away, but instead, using the tools at my disposal to make sounds people haven't heard before and that serve an arrangement's musical goal. Besides, it's fun to make stuff :)...even though not all the experiments make the final cut.

 

 

 

 

[Tusker]

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

I guess I'm not so much into making new sounds that blow people away, but instead, using the tools at my disposal to make sounds people haven't heard before and that serve an arrangement's musical goal. Besides, it's fun to make stuff :)...even though not all the experiments make the final cut.

 

Love the sampled attack approach. 👍

 

Yes it's fun and that's the point. There is tremendous "wastage" in synthesis. It's more "efficient" to write for established sounds.

 

I was getting to know U-He's Filterscape VA and ended up with a choir sound but calling it a choir sound would do it a disservice. Filterscape has basic oscillators and filter, but it does have a filter bank from heaven, which can do your formants and sizzly bits with precision. So I made a sizzly sound and remembered how to "choir-ize" it: make the attack messy with a touch of portamento, add that famous human vibrato. Thank you Isao Tomita. So now I can take the listener smoothly from an outer space white noise sizzle to Faure's Requiem and back again.  Will it get used? Can't think of a reason. But if I want to tell that story, there is now a way to tell it.

 

 

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, Anderton said:

For new sounds, what works best for me often relates to sampling. This gives sounds that are familiar, yet different.

 

For synths my main "fun with new sounds" approach mostly relates to playing style. 

 

...using the tools at my disposal to make sounds people haven't heard before and that serve an arrangement's musical goal. 

D8mmit. Brotha Craig, you've nailed it.😁

 

56 minutes ago, Tusker said:

There is tremendous "wastage" in synthesis. It's more "efficient" to write for established sounds.

This is important distinction to make especially for musicians.

 

IMO, synthesis is a tool for putting a musically useful spin on sounds and samples.

 

This does not discount synthesists, folks who enjoy going down the rabbit hole of sound design purely for the sake of making sounds that aren't necessarily useful musically. 

 

Fun stuff as a creative endeavor or time sink or both.😎

[Tusker]

59 minutes ago, ProfD said:

D8mmit. Brotha Craig, you've nailed it.😁

 

This is important distinction to make especially for musicians.

 

IMO, synthesis is a tool for putting a musically useful spin on sounds and samples.

 

This does not discount synthesists, folks who enjoy going down the rabbit hole of sound design purely for the sake of making sounds that aren't necessarily useful musically. 

 

Fun stuff as a creative endeavor or time sink or both.😎

 

There's room both for folks who see sound design as novelty and others who see sound design as essential to the story which is being told.

 

There's a rough parallel to the role of sound in movies. Movies are an expensive, risky cultural artifact. Because of the mammoth budgets, there's a well established conversation about the roles the elements play. In movies we distinguish between diagetic sound (sound that is from the story world) and non-diagetic sound (sound that is outside the story world). Non-diagetic sound can include the soundtrack, the narration, and any sound effects used to amplify emotion. In a movie like the Kings Speech the non-diagetic sound is less important. In Blade Runner the story cannot be told without it. I love both movies!

 

Similarly in some kinds of music, synthesis is just a decoration or a minor element. In other kinds of music it is central. For me, synthesis is resonating at it's highest purpose when the story cannot be told without it. I can respect people who feel differently and work differently.

[CEB]

Most of what I’ve been doing the last decade I could have done in 1995.   
 

Biggest differences in my gig rigs are:

- Ease of sampling and sample manipulation.  Some of the sounds of my rig Pop used samples I took from cheezy Casio and Portasound keyboards and manipulated through backend applied synthesis and effects.   Because we are trying to copy what Benny Blanco did. 

- Improvements and the development  Multitimbral  instruments is huge.  Yes I could have done much of the same stuff in 1995 but the rig was 3 boards and a rack on wheels with things like JV modules, TX81Zs, Emu Proteus modules, an Ensoniq sampler etc …. 

- Audio outputs of modern stuff is better.  New stuff sounds better than vintage stuff when you start doing a bunch of zones and layers of sources played on a separate hand.  The output is cleaner.  The difference was night and day when I did side by side comparison of my 87 D-50 and my D-05.  The only thing I liked about the D-50 was the output was hotter but D-05 with volume maxed is workable and way cleaner. The audio clarity is much better on new stuff.  I personally believe this is more important than ever because modern sound reinforcement is cleaner and more accurate… But at the end of the day I’m just a honky tonk piano player. 
 

“Something is only useful if you can use it” - Yamakura Sensei. 

[ProfD]

21 minutes ago, Tusker said:

There's room both for folks who see sound design as novelty and others who see sound design as essential to the story which is being told.

 

There's a rough parallel to the role of sound in movies. 

 

Similarly in some kinds of music, synthesis is just a decoration or a minor element. In other kinds of music it is central. 

Absolutely.  Synthesis is a very important tool for those who provide sound design for TV, film and music.😎

[Tusker]

This was the gateway drug for me. It's synthesis and the musical story cannot be told without it.

 

 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, CEB said:

- Improvements and the development  Multitimbral  instruments is huge.  Yes I could have done much of the same stuff in 1995 but the rig was 3 boards and a rack on wheels with things like JV modules, TX81Zs, Emu Proteus modules, an Ensoniq sampler etc …. 

Back in those days, we created combinations using a variety of sound sources and sampled it as a preset.  Reduced the # of KBs to schlep too.

 

1 hour ago, CEB said:

- Audio outputs of modern stuff is better.  New stuff sounds better than vintage stuff when you start doing a bunch of zones and layers of sources played on a separate hand.  The output is cleaner.

The convenience of modern KBs with multitimbrality and more polyphony took the fun, er, work out of the 1995 approach.😁

 

1 hour ago, CEB said:

But at the end of the day I’m just a honky tonk piano player.

While I'll always enjoy sound design too, that is the sobering reality.  Everything I do with sounds ultimately has to compliment my Rhodes.😎

[David Emm]

Frank Zappa once said the world would end by either paperwork or nostalgia, where we can't take the next step because we're pining away for an unrealistic past. That smells all too familiar. 😬 

 

I got to see Frank twice. If any specific thing keeps me from ever getting a swelled head, that would be it. Learning humility is good for ya.

[AROIOS]

On 12/13/2023 at 11:09 AM, analogika said:

...
In music production? Maybe. There's probably 10x to 100x the number of actual subtractive analog synths sold each month today vs. their supposed "heyday", though. 

Yup, in terms of tasteful application in actual music production.

The analog resurgence and the resultant sales numbers are mostly just a fad sucking talent-less nerds into making fart sounds.