Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Anonymous

The synthesiser, consumerism and anthropology.

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

The history of the synthesiser interests me, more so what those original inventors and designers intended it to be used for. In my opinion the synthesiser has taken the full force of modern day consumerism, along with all the crap associated with it
:(
Infact, i cannot think of anther musical instrument shrouded in such hype, huge advertising compaigns ( empty promises, anyone? ) and so many flashy colors, often little more than the slightest of design changes and upgrades.

 

Guitars you goit. Try reading the history before you start spouting off about it.

 

B>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Plastic Baby



Yoozer, please ask the administrators to ban the moniker Plastic Baby, i have disabled private messages and i want the moniker banned, i really do. Show the administrators or powers at be this post, i want it banned so others will finally believe the ADSR thing is finally over. Its upsetting the forum way too much, i admit its been a mistake this time around, i stand by everything i posted, i love the synth, just like everyone else, but all this ADSR {censored} is as stale as as a fishermans fart.


Everyone let off steam, now tell me to {censored} off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The modern day synthesiser must surely be the worlds most misunderstood musical instrument. Is this what those early pioneers and inventors intended? I think not."

 

So, what exactly is different about this thread from the countless others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Kazoo is the most misunderstood instruments in history. Its such a fine and noble instrument. And one is all you will ever need...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

Calm down, this thread just might surprise even you
:)

 

... Probably not.

 

Same {censored}, different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby



Did you read my thread starter?
;)

I refuse to create a new moniker and like i said i half expected the Plastic Baby moniker to be gone, i logged in and surprise, surprise its still active. If its still available, i'll use it.


I have given this whole ADSR thing some real thought and i still think its possible to continue posting.


I still have something to say, just got to do it in a less controversial way.

 

You've already said what you have to say, many, many, many times. The controversy is in the repetition and the condescension, and the refusal to address points directly and logically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's the same stuff, but the ever-more desperate attempts to garner attention are refreshing, if only because it'll eventually have to just give up, or get committed, or perhaps kill itself.

 

Much like the last idiotic thread, where it ran away. Or the SLR camera system thread where it ran away. In the deeper past, it managed to keep things sufficiently on target that it wasn't forced to flee screaming from the people who actually understand what it tries to talk about, but those days are long past.

 

B>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by packrat

Of course it's the same stuff, but the ever-more desperate attempts to garner attention are refreshing, if only because it'll eventually have to just give up, or get committed, or perhaps kill itself.


 

Yeah, I found it quite interesting how it would always say to me 'ill answer your points later' and then never would...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tony Scharf

...and now let us watch as they all fall into the deadly clutches of...


THE ATTENTION WHORE

 

Oh come on, I enjoy taunting that pathetic waste of database space as much as the next person.

 

B>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Track is pretty cool, PlasticBaby, good production quality. What hardware/software did you use?

 

As for the discussion - I still think you're putting too much effort into trying to change people's opinions when nobody really cares:) You write good music, Id rather hear more of that than another 20 page flame war:) :thu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - and I'm a guitarist as well and would have to say that guitarists in general are just as prone to GAS as any synthesist/keyboard player. $5000 guitars, $2500 amp rigs, etc all in search of that 'perfect tone'.

 

Just as much of a pipe dream as an electronic musician buying synth after synth thinking its going to catapult their music to the next level, when in fact that catalyst only comes from within.

 

But still - if that electronic musician truly wants to buy synth after synth, then that's his or her own business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One keyboard and one softsynth multi tracked, all effects are keyboards onboard effects, no other production, except for volume maximizer and adding vocal wavs, then converted to MP3. Thats all i'm saying for now


Thanks for listening

 

Fine. Then Im telling everyone you bought an Oasys. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Plastic Baby

 

Looks like you have used one of the Yamaha vocaloid VSTi-s, HW synth can be anything from old RA-s. synth_pad+flanger, lead_synth+arpeggio, sound belongs by my guess to one of the ARP models. Female vocal is probably vocaloid Miriam, male vocal is your own voice + EQ "Phone" preset. Few ambient samples (train wheels etc.) and a drumloop. 3 chord descending progression ( Bb -- Amin -- Bb/Ddim ) in the middle part.

 

And again, last 1/5 of the song sounds like not connected to the first 4/5 like I noticed last time when I listened to your song. It really breaks the song, and that's bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Originally posted by Awake77

Oh - and I'm a guitarist as well and would have to say that guitarists in general are just as prone to GAS as any synthesist/keyboard player. $5000 guitars, $2500 amp rigs, etc all in search of that 'perfect tone'.


Just as much of a pipe dream as an electronic musician buying synth after synth thinking its going to catapult their music to the next level, when in fact that catalyst only comes from within.


But still - if that electronic musician truly wants to buy synth after synth, then that's his or her own business.

 

I'd have to disagree about guitarists being as prone to gas as keyboard and synth players, sure, we all get it but not anywhere like keyboardists, in my opinion. It's not as if its just my opinion either, many Uni keyboard players have said exactly the same ( do you know how many Uni bands there are, most spending all thier grants on synths? nothing wrong in that, though :D ) and you only have to read posts from the various forums around the world to realise things are a little different regarding synths.

 

If you look at modern day consumerism and then take a closer look at the history of synths, how they evolved, you might see how it was possible for the synth to become an advertisers dream, so much potential for churning out what is essentially the same models but somehow with the promise to be the " ultimate " model.

 

I often wonder if the original inventors of the synth would consider owning many synths as defeating the objective? Would those original inventors agree or disagree about whether synths have really evolved the past few decades? in my opinion technolgy and design as improved but not much else, in many cases the sound of modern synths could be considered inferior and the dream of synthesis lost within the technolgy and design that makes them so attractive.

 

 

Awake77, i must now leave the following disclaimer and i'm tempted to post it in Capitals :D

 

Keyboard players can and will own as many keyboards as they feel necessary and i agree with you, it's there own business, but please remember no one forces you or anyone else to read these kind of threads. My opinion is just as valid as anyone elses and i am NOT on some saviour compaign, if i was i'd have said so, it really is in yours and others imaginations, this is strictly about the synthesiser and how i feel many musicians have been fooled into believing that we need more of them than we do and how easy it is to fall into the spiders web called consumerism :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you comment more on the problem with consumerism, speaking of synths?

 

Do you mean the fact that synths are cheap and easy to get for everyone, or that they lack in sound, compared to old analogue and digital instruments?

 

I think it is not the problem of synth designers because sound possibilities offered by modern synths surpass those of 20 years ago. The problem is the musician and their approach to music.

 

In 70's and 80's there were artists who explored the synth music and by now synthesizer music has become what powered flight has become over the 20th century. Flying an old DC3 is not the same as flying a Boeing 737. The latter is far more powerful, stable and reliable minus the whole essence and romanticism of flying offered by DC3.

 

Same with synthesizers, the romantic era of discovering electronic sounds has ended abruptly in 90's and turned into an era of the quest for the ugliest synth sound ever.

 

The beautiful synthesizer sound is useless and boring in modern pop music. Now distortion and phattness beyond common sense is in fashion. Beautiful sound has been replaced by 'stylish' sound. Today's synthesizer must have character of its own even if it means almost unusable sound (vide Metasonix).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby



I'd have to disagree about guitarists being as prone to gas as keyboard and synth players, sure, we all get it but not anywhere like keyboardists, in my opinion.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I can almost guarantee that you are wrong in this regard. Check out the HC guitar-related boards and I suspect that you will concede this point.

 

It's really very simple. People in general are acquisitive. Some people like cars, some like animal figurines, some like synths and some like guitars. The objects of desire may seem different but that need to fill that gaping hole is there to a greater and lesser extent in just about anyone who has a fascination for material goods. While there is the obvious intrinsic utility in synths and guitars (i.e., as tools for making music), they are also a part of this material world that we take all take part in.

 

Some people go overbord, some don't. Yeah, we get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

I have a few fresh ideas for this thread, i need to do a little research first though, but hey, you don't have to click in and read it, do you?
;)

 

PB, ignore the criticism and get on with your fresh ideas, already... :thu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

If you look at modern day consumerism and then take a closer look at the history of synths, how they evolved, you might see how it was possible for the synth to become an advertisers dream, so much potential for churning out what is essentially the same models but somehow with the promise to be the " ultimate " model.

 

Fender and Gibson have been playing this game quite well for the last 15 years. The goal is to create a Strat or Les Paul at every price point from $100 to $10,000 then use marketing to attract the buyers at each price point.

 

If all Strats claimed by Fender to be built to "vintage spec" were indeed built to vintage spec then they would all be the same right?

 

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

I often wonder if the original inventors of the synth would consider owning many synths as defeating the objective? Would those original inventors agree or disagree about whether synths have really evolved the past few decades?

 

If you consider the inventors as BUSINESSMEN then I'm sure they would love it if you owned as many different models of their brand as possible :cool:

 

Inventors seldom understand how their inventions will get used. Leon Theremin didn't anticipate "Good Vibrations", Leo Fender didn't anticipate Jimi Hendrix and the Les Paul was designed for playing jazz not heavy metal.

 

Originally posted by Plastic Baby

in my opinion technolgy and design as improved but not much else, in many cases the sound of modern synths could be considered inferior and the dream of synthesis lost within the technolgy and design that makes them so attractive.

 

 

Has the sound of synths really become inferior? Today I can create many sounds digitally that no Moog or ARP could ever make. I don't think the sound of synths in general has deteriorated much at all. Today's digital is closer and closer to old analog with all the benefits of modern technology: smaller, cheaper, more polyphony, MIDI, patch memories, integration of sampling with subtractive synthesis, etc.

 

What IS the dream of synthesis?

 

I'm not prevented from doing synthesis on a modern digital workstation, in many ways I have more and deeper control than with old analogs.

 

Meanwhile, there is plenty of analog still in production for the purist. There are probably more makers of modular synthesizers today than there has ever been.

 

Synths are still evolving, take a look at the DSI Evolver which manages to look both backwards and forwards at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Plastic Baby



Exactly, but it doesn't have to be that way.


 

But it is this way with some people, and it will always be this way with some people. I would hazard that everyone gets the "bug" at some point. Some get over it, some don't. Some miss that house payment and others get their priorities straight. No amount of moralizing will make this world a better place - not even this corner of Harmony Central.

 

As for guitars (and this includes their attendant amps, effects and various doodads), they are marketed and hyped every bit as aggressively as synthesizers. Think of all those various "signature" Les Pauls, strats and the like... The synth makers only wish that they could manufacture THAT level of redundancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it also has a lot to do with where these things are in their 'evolution'. How much has guitar technology changed in the last 25 years? How much has the synth changed?

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...