Synths: Stagnation?

[dalpozlead]

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and this is exclusive related to synths used for the “traditional” music composition (electronic, prog, jazz,… all genres). Therefore the use and ideas more related as experimental doesn’t apply… really interested in knowing your thoughts…

 

Synthesizers have transformed music production, composition and created new genres. Over the last years, specially evaluating latest new products from major manufactures (Oberheim, Korg, Yamaha, Kurzweil, Arturia, Novaiton, Roland and Nord) I cannot ignore the fact we have increased relabels and relaunches from vintage gear with same waveforms, architectures and at last, the same delivery of sound palette.

 

Making a comparison with electric guitars (e.g. Stratocaster)…:  Its design has remained largely unchanged over the years, despite technological advancements in pickups, electronics, and manufacturing techniques. The delivey is the same sound over the last 60 years.

 

Both instruments (synths and guitars) have undergone periods of rapid innovation followed by refinement and consolidation around established designs and technologies.

Evaluating synths in most genres I can see the patches used in “real life” remains the same, with sparks of innovation here and there… After all, I don’t see it as a limitation but as a door to be free of GAS and a break from the endless journey for more gear.

[JamPro]

So if I were a modern day synth manufacturer, and I hope to sell my synth to many buyers, it makes sense to me to name my synth something would-be buyers are familiar with and have positive associations with.  So I can understand why Roland rebrands "Jupiter" and Korg rebrands "M1".

 

It also makes sense to me that music producers will call for the same sounds that made up other previously successful songs: it should be no surprise that a modern synths will have lots of sounds that were famous from earlier hits.

 

We see the same thing in the move business: lots and lots of remakes and sequels to hit movies, and only rare attempts to go outside the box.  And for the same reason: the ticket-buying public wants more of what it already likes, and it is more difficult (and too often less profitable) to risk a new thing that the public might reject. 

 

Unlike the guitar - which will always make sound by amplifying the vibrations of strings - modern synths employ a large variety of mechanisms to make sounds: analog control voltages, sampling, digital modeling, frequency modulation, additive and subtractive synthesis, and so on.  A better analogy would be if guitars started to include strings and pickups, AND a mouth-piece and folded tubing to produce standing waves for sound production.

 

I am not really bothered by names that get recycled or modern synths that have lots of "old" sounds among the patches.  I am surprised that guitarists never got excited about using synthesizers the way keyboard players have.  Obviously, the excitement of keyboard players for synthesizers drove a lot of synthesizer development in keyboard-friendly ways; guitarists ignored synthesizers and synth manufacturers largely ignored guitarists.

[ElmerJFudd]

I don't see any stagnation from synth developers, it's just shifted to software.  Most of these devs would love to bring their synths to hardware, but it is challenging for a variety of reasons.  Firstly, programmers are not necessarily skilled at hardware so they need a partner - especially if they intend to use custom DSP (which also requires additional programming skills and work).  Most people would need backers or a kick-starter to make more than one.  There's always the option of using a rasberry pi, and I think this happens often.  

 

As far as patches - there are millions of patches.  wild stuff that most would ignore for song writing, but they might be just the thing as sound fx or the right vibe for film scores.  The reason why there are so many sound-alike bread and butter patches is because of the market.  It's what the majority of players and producers need.  But any synth with a variety of oscillators to choose from and a capable modulation matrix can sound like anything your imagination conjures.  It's figuring out how to program all these synths that takes time.  

 

[Stokely]

There's certainly a lot of moving forward in the software realm, which is where I live for any home/studio stuff.  Sure there are lots of emulations and copies of hardware, but there are also a lot of synths/sample libraries that defy definition.   I personally have little interest in some copy of old hardware, I just like something that sounds good and brings good features (e.g. the "lock" feature in Omnisphere where aspects of a patch can remain when you change patches, this is fantastic).

If you limit by genre, maybe things are stagnant, I don't know.  I know for my classic rock cover band needs the progress has been steady in most ways but I mostly use organ and piano so that might not count.

Edit: Like Elmer said!

[BluMunk]

In my inexpert opinion, innovation in electronic music in the last 20 years has been defined by production techniques and the maturing of the digital recording process as an "instrument" in and of itself. Synthesis (particularly subtractive synthesis and its various iterations) has become a solved problem.

 

Yes, there will always be a repackaging of features/UX/build/price-point (with the occasional innovation) to keep the synth market plugging along. But new synths, at this point, represent new combinations of existing preferences, nothing more. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeroen van Zutphen]

I was at Superbooth 2024 in Berlin. No synth stagnation there....

[Reezekeys]

What's left in sound generating methods applicable to music? We've seen it all, I think. Everything now is about making things easier, more portable, or to paraphrase Buddy Rich, give the non-musician "the assistance." Launch yer clips, trigger yer loops, etc. How about these keyboards that automatically play the "correct" notes for you? To wit: https://www.macprovideo.com/article/audio-hardware/arturia-releases-keystep-37-midi-keyboard-with-scale-mode-chord-mode-more

 

Face it, folks that actually put their hands on an instrument and choose which notes to play using their own resources are going away. Especially with the AI scene coming.

 

Why not be thankful for the tech that's here now and make the best of it, instead of always wanting more, better, easier, etc. etc.? A musically talented person with an iPad and a $200 controller can potentially make as good music as any of us could with $4000 Oberheims and Prophets years ago. Hooray for synth stagnation - go play some music! Rant over! 🙂 

[J.F.N.]

If you are talking about the big brands, yeah, stuck, look at Korg, the last 3-4 years re-hash of EVERYTHING over and over again, boooring, the most interesting they've churned out is the *Logue synths, where of they killed the master piece, the Prologue, which if it was due to not meeting their sales expectations, then imho was their own fault trying to sell it as a polyphonic analogue instead of teaching potential users about how amazing the Multi Oscillator concept is, did anyone say Positioning, not at Korg obviously... And yeah, not innovation per se, mixing digital with analog, but very well done wtih an open SDK for creating own pieces of software to put in there...

 

Yamaha, where shall I start... They take the safe road and probably make quite a bunch of safe money on that, anyone said Toyota?

 

Roland, well, they've done good with their multiplatform strategy, some interesting stuff going on there, though synthesis wise, no cigar, even if I do like the fact that they have implemented a pretty smart way of adapting your hardware to your own needs with their software/plugouts, or whatever other platform (boutique) one chooses.

 

Kurzweil, looking forward to their next iteration, though I got a feeling it's not going to be rocket science, more of the Yamaha strategy, well designed workhorses, revamped for another 5-10 years on the market.

 

And Clavia/Nord, looks to me they have found a loyal customer base to churn out new iterations too as well, seems the Nord Wave 2 was their last "monster" of sort that kind of stood out, will be interesting to see if anything interesting pops up there in the near future as well..

 

 

But for everything else, well, there's a LOT going on, around the more commercial brands, I'm a fan of Modal, and the ASM machines are not boring either, waiting with excitement on Novation to see what their next strike will be, time for a successor to the PEAK/Summit platform soon, and also, Erica synths are doing some very nice stuff too!

 

 

 

 

[ProfD]

Synths are no different from pianos and guitars when it comes to songwriting and composition.

 

Only a handful of analog synth sounds has ever been musically useful.

 

It's been 3 decades or so since signature synth sounds were responsible for hit records. 

 

Long gone are the days when a Patrick Cowley produced dance records with a lone Prophet 5.   

 

It's been a while since David Frank (The System) created a smash with his Oberheim setup.

 

Gear nostalgia among musicians is the only thing keeping reissued and rehashed synths relevant in the marketplace.  Same goes for electromechanical KBs.

 

Otherwise, synths have little or no impact on today's popular music.  Music producers are using  a variety of sound sources nowadays.😎

[RABid]

5 to 10 years ago Elektron was the big leader in a push to new sounds and boxes. The DAWless movement is pretty much built on Elektron. For the last few years they have become as stagnant as anyone.

 

But I am very happy with my Fantom 7 and see no reason to ever upgrade. I know it now, and it has transitioned from a big collection of sounds to my favorite instrument.  

[My Keys And Me Are Vintage]

5 hours ago, dalpozlead said:

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and this is exclusive related to synths used for the “traditional” music composition (electronic, prog, jazz,… all genres). Therefore the use and ideas more related as experimental doesn’t apply… really interested in knowing your thoughts…

 

Synthesizers have transformed music production, composition and created new genres. Over the last years, specially evaluating latest new products from major manufactures (Oberheim, Korg, Yamaha, Kurzweil, Arturia, Novaiton, Roland and Nord) I cannot ignore the fact we have increased relabels and relaunches from vintage gear with same waveforms, architectures and at last, the same delivery of sound palette.

 

Making a comparison with electric guitars (e.g. Stratocaster)…:  Its design has remained largely unchanged over the years, despite technological advancements in pickups, electronics, and manufacturing techniques. The delivey is the same sound over the last 60 years.

 

Both instruments (synths and guitars) have undergone periods of rapid innovation followed by refinement and consolidation around established designs and technologies.

Evaluating synths in most genres I can see the patches used in “real life” remains the same, with sparks of innovation here and there… After all, I don’t see it as a limitation but as a door to be free of GAS and a break from the endless journey for more gear.

Trying to ruin our fun? 🥺 Logically, you are correct. But my GAS still requires feeding! (And collecting VSTs is just not nearly the same thrill!)

[Tusker]

To be more adventurous with sound design we are going to have to be more adventurous with music. There is a boatload of new synthesis which doesn't easily find a place in a 3 minute pop song. 

[Stokely]

Just an example of moving things forward that occurred to me, look at some of the Dawesome synths like Novum.   Those don't bear much resemblance with good ol subtractive synths.   I don't own any of them, so I don't know how "useful" they'd be to me, but the vids were pretty wild.

End of the day, you start with a source and mangle/transform/filter it in some way, so in that sense all synths will be somewhat similar   

 

[GovernorSilver]

I have enough synths to make music and do not feel the need to buy more.

 

I believe that is what the OP attempted to communicate.

[ProfD]

9 minutes ago, GovernorSilver said:

I have enough synths to make music and do not feel the need to buy more.

Interestingly, I doubt that we will ever feel that enough music has already been made and there is no need for more.🤣😎

[GovernorSilver]

28 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Interestingly, I doubt that we will ever feel that enough music has already been made and there is no need for more.🤣😎

 

Perhaps I phrased it wrong.  

 

What I meant to say, which is what I think the OP meant to say is:

 

I want to make MORE music.  Do I have enough synths to make MORE and NEW music?   Yes (says the OP)

 

If I do not buy a new synth will I be prevented from making MORE music? No (says the OP)

 

[ProfD]

17 minutes ago, GovernorSilver said:

Perhaps I phrased it wrong.  

Brotha Gov, I was just kidding.  You know how I roll.🤣😎

[Stokely]

Well, if that was the point, I couldn't agree more   Heck I wouldn't be held back by the synths and effects that came with my Daw (Logic) if I applied myself to making the most out of them.  Sure some of the interfaces are a bit dated at this point (the updated ones are very nice IMO).

[David Emm]

Robert Heinlein said
 "Young lovers and young nations face the same problem:
    after orgasm, what?"

 

If the "newer is better" idea worked, we'd have Roland V-Synths all over the place. That thing is a sound design monster, but people will always veer towards what is familiar over what requires them (and hugely allows them) to stretch out. I fall prey to it some, but then, that's also called having a style, not a flaw.

 

The stagnation only appears if you clog up your own thinking by expecting wild new innovations every week. What, the means to manipulate any sound within the range of human hearing like Silly Putty ain't enough for you? Besides, you can find an endless flow of How-About-This synths on KVR, which comes with its own problems. Different thread!

 

Then there's the more obvious fact that most of us want the usual span of organs, synths, odd percussion and etc. Those will always be the main buffet, because that's how our ears and cultures work. Eyebrow-melting modular Krell tunes are... a specialty taste, ha. So, since when was having essentially unlimited choices a case of stagnation? I've basically found my voice within a setup that would have been a mere mushroom dream 30 years ago. 💪

[YashN]

With multi-synthesis platforms like the Yamaha Montage M, Kurzweil V.A.S.T., Korg OASYS, Kronos & Nautilus, etc..., the real question isn't whether we need more innovation in synths, it's whether you have explored the depths of various synthesis methods and their combinations to create new sounds.

 

Even the full capabilities of a K2000 (1992) haven't completely been realised. You could get one today and create a completely new Synthesis Architecture within it and hence various new sounds for your compositions or performances, without waiting for any new offering from a manufacturer.

 

We already have way more gear and synthesis methods, including multi-synthesis gear than we need or that we'll use IMO.

[dglcomp]

I like to think of the DX7, had great sound design possibilities but was seems so complex and difficult to program that people generally just used presets. Pushing the boundaries is all well and good but to sell to the average man on the street being too complex can make a product a difficult sell.

Plus when you've got Behringer releasing clones like no tomorrow and finding a decently sized market for them why do something new when you can just add slightly to an older product and you know it will be an easy sell.  

Of course making modern clones is difficult enough in itself, so it's not like the clone manufacturers couldn't create something new if they wanted to, would probably be easier to do in a lot of respects as you wouldn't have to work around trying to recreate the sound of something that uses now unobtanium parts!

[Tusker]

Music is art, and art is at least partly about community. It's about reaching people. If you can meld an audience into one mind by the end of your set, then as a musician you have won. The weekend I was at the beach and the finale for the local band was "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey. The audience had melted into one, young voices were screaming and laughing to a song older than themselves. That's a primal experience and you don't need ANY synths to provide that.  Ok, a couple of synth stabs if you insist. 

 

But music is more than classic rock on the beach isn't it? There are other idioms and you can create new idioms. That too is what is beautiful about art and music. 

 

Synth technology is accelerating forward in the land of soft synths and analog modular. People are tinkering with these tools and the internet is providing a forum to connect. These relative small backwaters do NOT lend themselves to community as directly and primally as classic rock or pop, but ideas will be passed into the larger river of music from them ... from time to time. Tinker in a backwater or join the large river? Define your music broadly or narrowly? Define your timbral needs narrowly or broadly? The good news is that you have choices. 

[AROIOS]

17 hours ago, YashN said:

...the real question isn't whether we need more innovation in synths, it's whether you have explored the depths of various synthesis methods and their combinations to create new sounds...

Exactly how I've felt about synths for decades. What we really cared about were never the synthesis methods, sample sizes etc, it's always been the sound.

D-50 is a perfect example, that board had garbage tech and specs by today's standards. It's the programmers' talent and taste that breathed life into those otherwise boring machines.

We don't need yet another recreation/emulation of a "vintage analog" fart machine or another 100GB 24bit/96khz sample library. Cleverly and tastefully programmed patches are what's lacking on the market.

[CEB]

Stagnation is a thing of the mind. 
 

My organ is big and was born in 1958. There are still days I find I can do things I never thought possible when I play with my organ.  

[Radagast]

18 minutes ago, CEB said:

 …when I play with my organ.  

You might want to reword that.

[dazzjazz]

I went to the store yesterday to play the new Minimoog and the OBX8.

both sounded amazing from the first note. Very inspiring. I definitely want to own the OBX8 - the tone is what I relate to. Sure it’s ‘limitied’ compared to modern feature sets, but modern synths don’t have that sound. 

[Tusker]

On the question of the wisdom of completely exploring the sounds in the synths you have before you add new ones, I'd like to gently differ. Why?

 

It's because an instrument is more than a collection of sounds. Sound is important for sure, but so is how it evolves over time and how it responds to the performer. To use a car analogy, a minivan could generate as much horsepower as a Miata but those horses will not provide the same experience. Applying that to music, an instrument may provide a million sounds but not the ones you wish to speak with.

 

An extreme example of this is Yamaha DX style FM. It's a pretty complete universe of sounds. So should I live inside that platform until I have exhausted it? You would likely agree that's silly.

 

So, sure be practical and stretch your dollars. But also, try being impractical. Have a fling with some unexpected instrument. Fall in love. Be inspired. It's a beautiful thing.

[Baldwin Funster]

I have more hard and soft synths than I can ever fully learn to use that I'll never run out of new possible usable and unusable sounds. It's not a lack of synths that slows my roll for creating new music. It what do i do with the music after I pour hours and dollars into making it?

Nobody buys music, nobody wants to play original music. Nobody wants to hear my great masterpieces. So I make a synth symphony and bury it in the digital graveyard. Or I dont.