Originally posted by Richard Butler
- that guy from SHM who's moved to LA said he was setting up OTB in order to 'set his sound apart from the million bedroom producers'. I'm pretty jealous of your setup.
I understand what you guys are getting at, but imo it's not what gear you use that sets you apart from the crowd but how you use it. ;)
Normie
Gee...I dunno. That's not a lot to work with... With so few options I don't really see how you could make much music. It's not like those synths are versatile...especially the Virus. And you don't even have a 'real' SSL desk, just a couple Alphas.
I think you should just give up music, adopt me and forget the whole sordid affair.
;)
quote:
Originally posted by Raphie
So I've agreed with myself to limit myself to
TEMPEST (got it back)
MOOG Voyager
MOOG Slim Phatty
Prophet 08
Virus Ti
Lexicon PCM91
and ofcourse my other outboard
dusty smeary berlin type pattern based techno, no more phasers, uplifters, pitch shifters, and all that other hyped .
Raphie
quote:
Originally posted by Teezdalien
I understand what you guys are getting at, but imo it's not what gear you use that sets you apart from the crowd but how you use it. ;)
ever used MOOG? it's thick, it's sticky, it's juicy, it has some kind of dusty boring fluid sound.
I find ITB sounds nowadays too polished, all the same samplepacks everywhere, the same metalic thin highs in all productions
go back to early ninetees and hear the difference, everything ninetees sounds thicker, more dynamics, less polished, almost amateur.
i.e. Faithles insomnia, BBE &days and 1 week, robert miles children, old italo house. no crazy fx there, just the odd snarerol, orchestral hit and crash cymbal.
Getting back to that level, leaving everything that makes NU EDM behind (Nexus, vengeange samplepacks, Deadmau$ based 3 osc bass tutorials in massive, sidechained whitenoise, dubstep vowel type leads, Afrojack, dutchhouse pitches...)no of that, NO MORE, Enough is enough! :D
Normie
I remember back in the 80s, we'd just grab our guitars/amps, head over to the drummer's house and jam. We didn't have a fraction of the power/capability the average kid with a cracked copy of FL and a few VSTs has today.
But we managed to make music.
Even having had that experience, I find myself fighting back thoughts of "I need" this or that VST. CalVp gave me great advice a while back to deal with this...basically 'learn what you have inside out then worry about something new.'
I think the sameness in a lot of current music is from everyone just presetting their way to a finished song. That's still possible, but not as easy with hardware - thus a more 'unique' sound for those using it. It's one thing to buy/crack a $200 softsynth and another to buy a $3000 Moog and then have to sell it because it's too much a bother to learn.
Now if people (not you personally, just people in general) spent the time learning Z3ta 2 or another decent softsynth as they would a real Moog or $8,000 Jupiter, I think the sameness thing would be greatly reduced. I mean really, say Z3ta...Is there anyone worth his salt that couldn't solely rely on it for everything synthwise and still make awesome music? If they can't it's a musicianship problem, not a fault of the VST.
That said, and all kidding in my other post aside, I totally get your point about the hardware. But we've become an instant gratification world and few want to work for what they can get for free.
Teezdalien
quote:
Originally posted by Raphie
ever used MOOG? it's thick, it's sticky, it's juicy, it has some kind of dusty boring fluid sound.
I find ITB sounds nowadays too polished, all the same samplepacks everywhere, the same metalic thin highs in all productions
go back to early ninetees and hear the difference, everything ninetees sounds thicker, more dynamics, less polished, almost amateur.
i.e. Faithles insomnia, BBE &days and 1 week, robert miles children, old italo house. no crazy fx there, just the odd snarerol, orchestral hit and crash cymbal.
Getting back to that level, leaving everything that makes NU EDM behind (Nexus, vengeange samplepacks, Deadmau$ based 3 osc bass tutorials in massive, sidechained whitenoise, dubstep vowel type leads, Afrojack, dutchhouse pitches...)no of that, NO MORE, Enough is enough! :D
Only in the music stores I vist now and then. :o I would love to own a moog and I'd also like to put together a proper modular synth as a project at some point, just have more pressing priorities atm, so ya I'm stuck with plug-ins for now.
I hear ya and agree on the current generic sounds getting used over and over and don't deny the fact that good hardware can make a difference, but to me good musical ideas make a bigger difference. I think Normie summed it up pretty well. :)
Raphie
And that exactly is my point, it's not only the sonic palette, but also the nagging feeling of stuff that you decided to pay for is being abused all over the world, it's not exclusive anymore. also the options are too broad, i really need to refocus.
VST(i)based music has become a rat-race, of the ever evolving combined sound of Trance/electro/Dubstep cliche's and i want to get AWAY from that as far as possible. Have been sucked into it for a couple of years now, just realizing that you try to live up to the "taste of the week" expectations, but you just get drowned in all the millions of others who do that too. You will never get ahead of the curve, as that nowadays is label/DJ/social network reputation dictated. I'm getting way to old trying to play ball there.
so from now on, I'm only going to make what I like, how "90ties, amateur or unfinished" that may sound :D back to "Synthesizer Greatest" JMJ and oldskool techno for me. Publishing it on my own label, just because i can :D
Normie
AH! a fellow 'old fart'! I get lonely with all these young'uns scampering around ;)
One of the other forums I read (though all are guilty of it to some extent) has tons of posts saying pretty much the same thing...
"I have zeta/Omni/Sylenth/etc. but I 'need' Massive cuz I wanna make dubstep"
Being only a couple years into Electronic music I marvel at the power of today's softsynths. To me, the above is like saying "I wanna play some Zepplin style rock but I 'need' a Les Paul and only have a Jackson."
If you can't play 'Stairway' on a Soloist, an LP isn't gonna help much.
Page could make a Squire Strat sound like an LP as he's a God amongst guitarists with an excess of chops. So why can't little Donnie Dubstep make WOWOWOWOWOWOUMP! on Z3ta? It isn't because Cakewalk skimped on LFO control. It's because he's too lazy to learn the program...even RTFM and because all his friends use Massive to do it so he has to also.
Maybe it's because I'm still a newb, but I don't see the limitation of software. Like I said in another thread, Sure, hardware sounds better in a vacuum, but get it in a proper mix and all that 'analog magic' isn't so easy to hear. Certainly nothing that will break a song for it's absence or inclusion.
Just to be clear, I don't hate hardware and wish I had tons of it. But I think people, myself first and foremost, just need to learn to use what they have and the 'unique sound' they want will occur as a natural byproduct of that.
Raphie
It's not the limitation of software, it's more the opposite, if you know what i mean?
I mean, I've bought DCAM, OMFG hard to get anything authentic out there, the CORE ASDR and filter sound like every other VSTi and the FX and mangle phrase options are overwhelming, but they are just that mangling phrase FX.
I just want to go back to SIMPLE: ADSR / cutoff / reso and FAT OSCs and some core modulation.
Ofcourse great music sounds great on anything, it's more about what suits you.
Normie
There's a lot to be said for simplicity - nothing wrong with that approach at all. When I first read your post it got me to thinking about the older music, how many people long for it and how 'simple' the tools were to get it done, whether we're talking the 80s hair metal I'm most familiar with or proto-trance.
An 808/909 and a Juno/DX at best, were a high end rig that many could only dream of from my read of history (as I wasn't into EDM type music back then, I can't speak from experience). Most made music on far less quality. On the guitar/Amp side, we actually had the equipment that so many today GAS for, but lacked an easy/cheap way to record it.
Something like LOGIC or reason would have been like aliens landed with the cure for all diseases. Yet today if we 'only' have one of those we feel like we 'need' more and can't 'realize our vision' without a hard drive filled with a laundry list of VSTs. Thus my rant about 'learn what you have'.
And I agree that too many options can be as restricting as too few. It's kinda like the old punk ethos - just need 3 chords and the truth. Then again, Simple is relative. That Virus alone has the power of probably several Synclavers ;)
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you overall, though I could have voiced it a lot better than I did. Especially the cracked software thing...Remember that war here a while back? ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Raphie
It's not the limitation of software, it's more the opposite, if you know what i mean?
I mean, I've bought DCAM, OMFG hard to get anything authentic out there, the CORE ASDR and filter sound like every other VSTi and the FX and mangle phrase options are overwhelming, but they are just that mangling phrase FX.
I just want to go back to SIMPLE: ADSR / cutoff / reso and FAT OSCs and some core modulation.
Ofcourse great music sounds great on anything, it's more about what suits you.
Richard Butler
quote:
Originally posted by Normie
Maybe it's because I'm still a newb, but I don't see the limitation of software. Like I said in another thread, Sure, hardware sounds better in a vacuum, but get it in a proper mix and all that 'analog magic' isn't so easy to hear.
For me personally I am finding nowadays that I can decipher a crucial difference and that the analogue magic speaks to me - I never thought I would say this btw.
I still like tracks that are all software, and will always use software. If money was no object I'd be mainly hardware though.
I mean listen to the grimey dust here, I am CERTAIN this could not be reproduced in software, maybe try yourself just for fun.
I don't want any kind of software / hardware war, just grownup debate amongst people willing to explore things without taking offence (not that you would, but it has been known of fora!);
Raphie
for me it's quite simple:
- Focus - limit yourself from the overload of VST(i) and force yourself to work with what's there (HW wise)
- Sound - Less is more and analogue in minimalistic setups sounds better to my ears
- separate from the rest - work with stuff that people can't download, regardless if there is consensus about whether this impacts results or not.
-workflow- sequencing limitations brings new creativity (i.e. TEMPEST sequencer) opposed to Cubase pianoroll
because of above, one will sound different, not as much as this weeks fashion flava of the week. And ty tracks will still be ty tracks. But at least different sounding ty tracks :D
gone will be the Vengeance kicks with the layered snare or HH for rge "snap" freed from the mandatory sidechain, 3 chords arpeggio's modulated over time, which are too simple for "modern" production, but still sound engaging, because of the deep fluid texture when modulating them. Like going full circle, what was boring and conventional 10 years ago, now will be revived, Oldskool deephouse is getting back, Berlin techno tracks moving in that direction as well.
simple drumpatterns, nice liquid chord stabs engaging arps.
Normie
I love deep philosophical discussions ;)
Now bear in mind I'm far from an expert on squat, so take my ranting for what it's worth.
That sounds great. Dunno what made it and I sure never made anything that sounds similar. The grime aspect... I wonder if it's the result of layers of harmonic distortion cumulatave from all Analog gear from synth to compressors to desk or could you get a similar if not 'perfect' result by passing an ITB mix or even bussed tracks through modern if cheap hardware?
Here's my theory FWIW and let me begin stating that I do not think a $100 compressor will give the results of a $100,000SSL4K desk.
People love the old school sounds, much of which was made on gear that was far from pristine...it was noisy. Today modern computer gear and even new analog hardware is anything but. So of you want 'that sound' and lack the resources to buy the vintage gear that created it, wouldn't you be best served by using less than perfect gear when possible?
Say something like running busses/mixes through a cheaper tube pre or a $100 DBX comp to get the grit lost in the digital realm? You are still mainly ITB but havent spent the farm on outboard. If 'analog dirt' to provide blue/ambience is the goal, in a musical sense, a bit of kit might help bridge the gap where a saturator plug in might not cut it.
Then again, I may be nuts ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Butler
For me personally I am finding nowadays that I can decipher a crucial difference and that the analogue magic speaks to me - I never thought I would say this btw.
I still like tracks that are all software, and will always use software. If money was no object I'd be mainly hardware though.
I mean listen to the grimey dust here, I am CERTAIN this could not be reproduced in software, maybe try yourself just for fun.
I don't want any kind of software / hardware war, just grownup debate amongst people willing to explore things without taking offence (not that you would, but it has been known of fora!);
