|
Has electronic dance music run its course? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by 2techs
You're surely trolling, considering how I know first-hand that you're into hardware-produced late 90's music as well. |
Yeah, of course I'm into it, but I'm not claiming that it was the fact that it was made through hardware that made it so good. I'm also not claiming that there's no way music in the future can be as good or better. |
|
|
| meriter |
| I'm posting just so I can say I was part of the worst thread in the history of the internet |
|
|
| 2techs |
| Whatever gives you peace, . |
|
|
| djnitride |
I think that software like Omnisphere (released over 6 years ago) completely destroys any notion of hardware superiority in sound. These newer types of synths can use samples instead of basic waves, meaning you can sample a Virus and get the same analog sound to start with. Advances in analog modeling in high end software synths has caught up as well. Combine those two factors and you should be able to see why hardware synths are no longer necessary for better quality music.
I agree that dance music has pretty much come full circle though. |
|
|
| Vida1003 |
| quote: | Originally posted by djnitride
I think that software like Omnisphere (released over 6 years ago) completely destroys any notion of hardware superiority in sound. These newer types of synths can use samples instead of basic waves, meaning you can sample a Virus and get the same analog sound to start with. Advances in analog modeling in high end software synths has caught up as well. Combine those two factors and you should be able to see why hardware synths are no longer necessary for better quality music.
I agree that dance music has pretty much come full circle though. |
So right, sound design capabilities of the VST's out now are almost limitless. Even genre's rooted in the use of live instruments like rock and country are starting to use software. Scratch that,rock has been using software for years just look at Linkin Park,their latest album sounds like the whole thing was produced in a DAW with no live instruments.
As for dance music coming full circle I can never agree with this. It's too broad. Anyone lurking out there could have the next big innovation sitting in there head right now. I'm sure we will hear it when the time is right but I don't think it will have any connection to trance,house or techno or anything we've ever heard before whatsoever. |
|
|
| 2techs |
| quote: | Originally posted by djnitride
I think that software like Omnisphere (released over 6 years ago) completely destroys any notion of hardware superiority in sound. These newer types of synths can use samples instead of basic waves, meaning you can sample a Virus and get the same analog sound to start with. Advances in analog modeling in high end software synths has caught up as well. Combine those two factors and you should be able to see why hardware synths are no longer necessary for better quality music.
|
Can you post a trance track made through Omnisphere? I'm just curious. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| I was just listening to Haak - Bass Shuttle, and I wonder if it was made solely through software, or if there was hardware involved. It's a great track. |
|
|
| 2techs |
| I'm pretty sure Bass Shuttle was mostly on software. I'm not saying all software tracks are crap - there are exceptions. All I'm saying is that hardware usually churned out the best trance tracks. |
|
|
| djnitride |
| quote: | Originally posted by 2techs
I'm pretty sure Bass Shuttle was mostly on software. I'm not saying all software tracks are crap - there are exceptions. All I'm saying is that hardware usually churned out the best trance tracks. |
Now you are on to something. IMO, the introduction of software into production had two negative effects:
1. Initial software synthesis sounded no where near as good as hardware. This is a fact.
2. The number of possibilities opened by software synthesis made it harder to churn out a good track that didn't sound all over the place if you were not careful. This is one reason you see rompler synths like Nexus being used more and more by your average producer.
One has been fixed today, two is still just as big a problem as it ever was. The power / sound quality of software synths is very real, but so is the challenge is getting the most out of them. |
|
|
| 2techs |
| quote: | Originally posted by djnitride
Now you are on to something. IMO, the introduction of software into production had two negative effects:
1. Initial software synthesis sounded no where near as good as hardware. This is a fact.
2. The number of possibilities opened by software synthesis made it harder to churn out a good track that didn't sound all over the place if you were not careful. This is one reason you see rompler synths like Nexus being used more and more by your average producer.
One has been fixed today, two is still just as big a problem as it ever was. The power / sound quality of software synths is very real, but so is the challenge is getting the most out of them. |
This is what I'm talking about. I guess 'less is more' when it comes to producing tracks. Trance of the past sounded natural and organic for a lack of better terms, even when the supersaw was being used to death starting in the late 90's. Tracks today sounds way too polished and overprocessed. If software synthesis is too much for these producers, why can't they go back to the modules that churned out beautiful joints?
This is what Maceo Plex said in an interview last year:
What do you think musicians today can learn about music styles and trends from the past?
That by limiting yourself in the studio to only using simple hardware, you can create grooves that you wouldn't normally think of. That's why many records from the past capture a groove that you don't often hear today. Also, a type of sound design that may seem more futuristic than even today's techno has. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| Yep, because with hardware you get to improvise and make mistakes, which results in classics like In Sync - Storm, as mentioned in the other thread. |
|
|
| djnitride |
Hardware tends to be more focused in terms of character. You have synths like the Virus, TB-303, etc that have very distinct characteristics to them. It is harder to get completely lost in sonic possibility and end up sounding overproduced or thin because you go in having somewhat of a preconception of the sound. That is not to say you can't do an infinite number of incredible things with analog only, but I think its easier to not lose the character of what you are making this way whether its the workflow that comes with working with something physical or sound characteristics of the synth itself. You still can have this character using software, its just harder.
So yeah, quality wise software has been there for a while but the number of people who can use them better than analog for dance music specifically doesn't seem to be. |
|
|
|
|
