Analog Synths sound dated?

@no one in particular

 

Using "out-of-the-box" settings has been with us since the technology was first sold. Townshend used a vanilla preset on Baba O'Riley to produce the iconic "synth" arpeggio (it was actually a Lowery electric organ with a marimba preset and built-in arpeggiator) - the obvious simularity to Terry Riley was not lost on him and he acknowledged that in the song title - later David Vorhaus (et al) would use racks of electronic generators and sequencers to produce a similar effect that today can be again replicated using an arpeggiator preset and one finger chord-playing. Now that preset arpeggination has become commonplace we have become inured to it, what appeared to be innovation by Townshend is now considered to be lazy and clichéd, yet that hasn't rendered the arpeggiator obsolete, you still see synth-players striking a pose while playing an arpegginated chord with one finger, just as you still see guitarists posing with one foot on the stage monitor. 

 

Pink Floyd's On The Run and Gary Numan's Cars are also reported to have used settings that they discovered by accident when first switching on the synths (EMS Synthi AKS  and Polymoog respectively), other songs that use similar sounds can be nothing but derivative. I know from my own playing that when you discover a synth setting that sounds like, for example, Vangelis or Tangerine Dream how difficult it is not to compose a Vangelis or Tangerine Dream pastiche, just as metal bands that discover a "Slayer" or "Iron Maiden" riff will sound like Slayer or Ironning Maiden, yet relatively minor tweeking can change the sound to be non-derivative, even on preset-synths. When I bought my (Analogue Modelling) digital Oberhiem the guy in the music shop told me it has some real Phat analogue sounds that are perfect for techno music, and sure enough out of the box it did, but since that wasn't why I bought it that's not how I use it, its memory banks are not factory preset anymore. 

 

I concur. The DX7's sounds were (mostly) unimpressive, but the overabundance of the Roland D-50's "breathy" patches and the Korg M1's overly slick palette across all genres of music (rock, new age, jazz, R&B) sealed the deal. The D-50 and M1 are used today, but their users keep them on hand for a few select patches they like to keep handy. I recall Mark Robertson (Cairo) saying he kept his D-50 for some sounds that he liked to play solos with.

richardh wrote: what bout the Fairlight that was used by Eddie Jobson, Kate Bush and others? there was also MIDI technology which was used by Keith Emerson in ELPowell in conjunction with his Yamaha GX1.

 

Eddie's Theme Of Secrets project was great for the time. The pristineness, the clarity of the sounds he employed on that record were quite nice for 1985. It's a fine album, IMO, but Keith's sounds on ELPowell were a bit too "80s"; the faux-analog lead on "Love Blind" is good.

 

richardh wrote: I also like a lot of the music made by Tangerine Dream and Vangelis in that decade although I'm not sure exactly what equipment they were using.

 

I don't think I've ever heard a "bad" synth sound used by Vangelis. Up through 1986, Tangerine Dream were the "go to" guys for hearing great new sounds and synth protoypes not heard anywhere else. When Chris Franke left, it showed!

 

richardh wrote: There was also the best period of Rush (imo) that was largely based on a greater use of synth.

 

MP, Signals, GuP, Power Windows...yup!

 

richardh wrote: The likes of the neo prog bands such as IQ and Marillion managed to make good use of the tech available without sounding cheesey or whatever,

 

Rik Carter uses some great sounds on Pendragon's The Jewel!

Kate Bush did use the Fairlight quite brilliantly on The Dreaming.  Re Rush, the problem for me was I found Geddy's keyboard playing quite boring.  I don't know that the tones would have made much of a difference either way to me.  On Snakes and Arrows, he used keyboards to create atmospheric layers of sound rather than to play leads and I think he works better in that role as far as keyboards go.  

 I think Dean had said once in an earlier thread that 80s keyboards were the first digital ones and therefore limited in their functionality compared to their modern counterparts.  Renaissance recreate their orchestral sounds with two keyboards a lot better on stage now than what John Tout could manage with the instruments at his disposal in the 70s.  It doesn't beat a REAL orchestra but neither could Tout's so called  orchestra sounds so that wouldn't be a fair comparison anyway.   

Anyhow, a few like Kate Bush or Donald Fagen were able to negotiate the 80s well, so not all 80s sounds, digital or otherwise, are necessarily that dated.   

I'm with you. I'm also with Surrealist in that digital technology may lead some people to an abuse of certain of its properties and to neglecting some important aspects a musician should take care of mastering. But he is wrong in equating 'digital' with those potential 'collateral consequences'.

It's a bit like the discussion regarding all the technological driving aids in modern cars (auto distance to the car in front, auto braking, eye monitoring to prevent you from falling asleep, automatic parking etc etc). Many good drivers argue that these technologies actually contribute to making people ever worse drivers, neglecting the importance of being concentrated while driving and of learning to control the car by ourselves and instead getting used to the concept that the machine will take care for us. It's not the technology itself which is a problem but it can lead to undesired secondary effects.

 

I have said time and time again, it's not the technology you have but how you use it. Repeating the mantra that digital technology allows you to modify minutiae of detail does not mean that everybody does, to assume that they do is just ignorance and more than just a little insulting.