Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Analog Synths sound dated?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAnalog Synths sound dated?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>
Author
Message
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7887
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2012 at 20:24
Dated? Yes, but not in my world of prog! 80's RUSH is still a sound staple in my prog rotation. Geddy on the synth is magical. What a great distinct sound. Really typifies that true 80's sound that I love so very much 😜
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2012 at 22:55
Originally posted by Josef_K Josef_K wrote:

I agree, and I would like to add that just because other technology is available doesn't mean it's not OK to use analog synths. Imo, it's a bit like saying you can't use acoustic guitars in progressive music because the electric guitar is a newer version of the instrument. Also, if you are using VA-synths, they really use digital technology to come close to the analog sound (in addition to other things), and there is NOTHING progressive about that :D You don't have to use the newest, or even remotely new, equipment to be experimental, you need to use it in a new way. Therefore, I claim that the sound of analog synths is not dated at all, no more than guitars, pianos, organs etc at least.


I'm with you completely. I also like what Moshkito said about having the mindset to treat them as new and unique instruments. 80s synths don't seem to lend themselves to this for the reason I already gave. Or is the problem with the musicians? Both I'm sure. I'm already record on another thread that the 80s were indeed the worst decade for Prog.
Back to Top
verslibre View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 19360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2012 at 00:31
Originally posted by pitfall pitfall wrote:

People say that a Clavinet = funk, but just listen to Kerry Minnear of Gentle Giant fame on this instrument! In the end it's the player that makes an instrument sound good, bad, dated or plain fantastic. 
 
Wakey's rapid-fire Clav lead on "Ice Run" from White Rock is deelish!
Back to Top
Josef_K View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Stockholm
Status: Offline
Points: 147
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2012 at 15:11
I would like to blame the record companies mainly for the lack of experimentalism in 80s music. Preset synths can be very useful, like the ARP Pro Soloist for example. Tony Banks used it for some of the greatest lead sounds I've ever heard on the "Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" album, as well as many strange sounds in songs like "The Colony of Slippermen" and "The Waiting Room". Now sure, that instrument still has the analog warmth, but it IS a preset synthesizer. 
Leave the past to burn,
At least that's been his own

- Peter Hammill
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18586
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2012 at 16:18
Hi,
(Posted here, because the "sound" fits the "analog" ... and that sound was killed off with "digital" in radio, btw!)
 
This applies to MY EXPERIENCE in America ... I can not speak for England and the rest of Europe, although I can tell you that this could easily apply to Short Wave, but I can not speak for its quality.
 
America had FM radio ... and while it started in the 30's, it never became an important mover in music ... until the late 60's when the new FM radio stations became known and heard.
 
The issue?
 
(Mickey Mouse/Goofy description!!!!!!!!)
 
FM radio had two bands, instead of one, like the AM, or Short Wave radio.
 
The difference? ... the "stereo" music could be separated and played as such. Left channel on one side and right channel on the other side.
 
While in a stereo this is not a big deal, except when an instrument goes left or right ... or you hear the girl walk across your path and go into the room to say ... look at all these guitars ... in comparison to the AM radio, or shortwave, this is MASSIVE'ly more realistic and closer to our experience. And on occasion during inclement weather, you know that the bands would bend a little and distort the sound a bit ... the resulting effect is different ... and sometimes off sync ... which adds an effect to the music that makes it ... more interesting! WAYYYY more interesting ... so when Robert Plant would bend "loovvvvvvvvvveeee you ... " in those situations, it would sound WAYYYYYY better tnan any recording!
 
For me, a lot of this music sounded BETTER on the FM radio, than it really did on LP, or anything else, and I was lucky ... Guy Guden in Santa Barbara was a close friend (he's a duckless turkey these days and is too stuck up to say hello, or Merry Christmas!) and roomate (I paid the rent the first 4 years!!!), and the massive amount of music he played, and we enjoyed, was 2nd to none. By comparison, even today, many of the shows out there are all top ten, and not as diversified as Guy's show ever was ... and this is hard to say, because most folks have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am saying ... I will a list of shows and the stuff played for a few select folks here ... for an idea.
 
Two important things here, that I just noticed, as I got me a nice Stanton turntable for my LP's ...
 
1. Turntables at KTYD and the LA stations are EASILY turned down and tuned to about 1 to 2% slower. The end result is that a lot of bass and lower sounds make a lot of rock bands sound "heavier".
 
2. The separation of the channels over the airwaves, to get put together again via your receiver changes the music a wee bit ... and it is VERY DIFFERENT. The best example I can give you is compare the US version of Sgt Peppers with the English version ... comes off much cleaner, deeper and more intense!
 
Now, I can not speak for AM radio as much since they are all about the small singles of old ... but it is not likely that as much manipulation went on that is perceptible ... you don't hear enough of the song to discuss it.
 
In my estimation, this helped a LOT of music sound WAY BETTER than it really is, in many cases ... and while the difference is minor, it made the radio preferable to your own listening ... UNLESS ... you had a massively good stereo system that made the music sound WAYYYYYYY better than most listeners have ever heard. For example, I had a pair of $750 dollar speakers (in 1978!!!) and a turntable and cartridge combo that cost ($500 dollars in 1978 as well) ... which was not top f the line (Bang and Olafson was!) but it was close. The result was very clean and reproduction that was massive and made a lot of this music sound very good, and the radio difference was not an issue ... it was really minor for me ... compared to most.
 
I just had a conversation with a friend that has over 3k LP's and knows his music really well, and one of the things I mentioned was this ... and his comment? ... no wonder some of this digital stuff sounded like crap! ... and he explained that it was not BAD ... jsut not that great, compared to what can be done out there. But I played him some of the same things on the tapes I have (now on mp3) and he was astounded ... he couldn't believe it ... like you all mostly won't either.
 
A lot of it ... has to do with the "medium" that the music came from ... Pink Floyd sounded excellent on the medium, even better than the records themselves in America (all 2nd class quality!) ... and so did Genesis, and ELP and many others ... and it helped sell a lot of this stuff!
 
Thus, as a joke, I like to state that radio ... was a lot more progressive than most of the music itself ... which is not a surprise since almost all of it, became just another commercial piece of music! And it's not getting better today because the fidelity is not important to prog ... the loudness is!
 
I sincerely believe that this helped the "analog" synthesizer sound very different and more interesting than it is today, because there were even more factors that made its sound even more interesting and important ... than it really is ... specially today when the "digital" side of this has pretty much made the sound come off as not as good as it used to be!
 
I just heard Acid Mother's Gong ... and I have to tell you that little moog is very digital, and completely "poor" in quality, by the time you compare its tones to Keith. Toni, Richard, Rick, Patrick, Vangelis ... and many others!


Edited by moshkito - October 03 2012 at 12:30
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Hidria Spacefolk View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: October 01 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2012 at 07:33
For creating music analog synths are still the best.
I can be programming softsynts for days, trying to perfect  the sound.
But with analog it takes only couple minutes fidling with knobs, find cool sound and hit record and move on...
 it's also FUN!!!

You can ask if Darkside of the Moon sound dated? sure it does, but it still sounds great!
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2012 at 18:43
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
This applies to MY EXPERIENCE in America ... I can not speak for England and the rest of Europe, although I can tell you that this could easily apply to Short Wave, but I can not speak for its quality.
 
America had FM radio ... and while it started in the 30's, it never became an important mover in music ... until the late 60's when the new FM radio stations became known and heard.
 
The issue?
 
(Mickey Mouse/Goofy description!!!!!!!!)
 
FM radio had two bands, instead of one, like the AM, or Short Wave radio.
 
The difference? ... the "stereo" music could be separated and played as such. Left channel on one side and right channel on the other side.
 
While in a stereo this is not a big deal, except when an instrument goes left or right ... or you hear the girl walk across your path and go into the room to say ... look at all these guitars ... in comparison to the AM radio, or shortwave, this is MASSIVE'ly more realistic and closer to our experience. And on occasion during inclement weather, you know that the bands would bend a little and distort the sound a bit ... the resulting effect is different ... and sometimes off sync ... which adds an effect to the music that makes it ... more interesting! WAYYYY more interesting ... so when Robert Plant would bend "loovvvvvvvvvveeee you ... " in those situations, it would sound WAYYYYYY better tnan any recording!
 
For me, a lot of this music sounded BETTER on the FM radio, than it really did on LP, or anything else, and I was lucky ... Guy Guden in Santa Barbara was a close friend (he's a duckless turkey these days and is too stuck up to say hello, or Merry Christmas!) and roomate (I paid the rent the first 4 years!!!), and the massive amount of music he played, and we enjoyed, was 2nd to none. By comparison, even today, many of the shows out there are all top ten, and not as diversified as Guy's show ever was ... and this is hard to say, because most folks have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am saying ... I will a list of shows and the stuff played for a few select folks here ... for an idea.
 
Two important things here, that I just noticed, as I got me a nice Stanton turntable for my LP's ...
 
1. Turntables at KTYD and the LA stations are EASILY turned down and tuned to about 1 to 2% slower. The end result is that a lot of bass and lower sounds make a lot of rock bands sound "heavier".
 
2. The separation of the channels over the airwaves, to get put together again via your receiver changes the music a wee bit ... and it is VERY DIFFERENT. The best example I can give you is compare the US version of Sgt Peppers with the English version ... comes off much cleaner, deeper and more intense!
 
Now, I can not speak for AM radio as much since they are all about the small singles of old ... but it is not likely that as much manipulation went on that is perceptible ... you don't hear enough of the song to discuss it.
 
In my estimation, this helped a LOT of music sound WAY BETTER than it really is, in many cases ... and while the difference is minor, it made the radio preferable to your own listening ... UNLESS ... you had a massively good stereo system that made the music sound WAYYYYYYY better than most listeners have ever heard. For example, I had a pair of $750 dollar speakers (in 1978!!!) and a turntable and cartridge combo that cost ($500 dollars in 1978 as well) ... which was not top f the line (Bang and Olafson was!) but it was close. The result was very clean and reproduction that was massive and made a lot of this music sound very good, and the radio difference was not an issue ... it was really minor for me ... compared to most.
 
I just had a conversation with a friend that has over 3k LP's and knows his music really well, and one of the things I mentioned was this ... and his comment? ... no wonder some of this digital stuff sounded like crap! ... and he explained that it was not BAD ... jsut not that great, compared to what can be done out there. But I played him some of the same things on the tapes I have (now on mp3) and he was astounded ... he couldn't believe it ... like you all mostly won't either.
 
A lot of it ... has to do with the "medium" that the music came from ... Pink Floyd sounded excellent on the medium, even better than the records themselves in America (all 2nd class quality!) ... and so did Genesis, and ELP and many others ... and it helped sell a lot of this stuff!
 
Thus, as a joke, I like to state that radio ... was a lot more progressive than most of the music itself ... which is not a surprise since almost all of it, became just another commercial piece of music! And it's not getting better today because the fidelity is not important to prog ... the loudness is!
 
I sincerely believe that this helped the "analog" synthesizer sound very different and more interesting than it is today, because there were even more factors that made its sound even more interesting and important ... than it really is ... specially today when the "digital" side of this has pretty much made the sound come off as not as good as it used to be!
 
I just heard Acid Mother's Gong ... and I have to tell you that little moog is very digital, and completely "poor" in quality, by the time you compare its tones to Keith. Toni, Richard, Rick, Patrick, Vangelis ... and many others!

Another insightful quote, M!  Thanks! 

I trained as a studio engineer in Champaign, IL during the Starcastle era and learned about the advantages of FM radio & how they could "clean up" the analog LPs for broadcast, using filtration, compression etc.  Some stations were better than others, it depended upon their equipment suite & the mastery of the broadcast engineer on duty! 

And I concur with your comments about the analog synth having "even more factors that made its sound even more interesting and important..."  The inherent "imperfections" of the devices made for some interesting musical serendipity, as the musicians had to work around tuning drift and other issues on the fly!   

Some of the analog synths were SONIC BEASTS, like the amazing Prophet 5 synth!  Man, what tone!  

The newest synths seem to be "going retro" by offering some of the sonic features that the old analog units had (nice, frequency-rich square wave generation etc.) and offering the keyboardists the options of a close-to-analog sound without all the hassles of the real deal.  Plus, the modern workstations (Roland Fantom etc.) have velocity-sensitive keys, which are a huge advantage.  They recreate the Mellotron in a very reliable & usable fashion, a huge advantage over the old Dallas Arbiter M-Trons! 


Edited by cstack3 - October 01 2012 at 19:03
Back to Top
presdoug View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8841
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2012 at 20:09
When i was at University in the mid 1980s, i created and DJ'd a radio program on the Trent University  station called Flashback, centering on older music from the late 60s to the early 70s-it was fun, from Pink Floyd to Budgie to UFO to Hawkwind and Atomic Rooster, that wonderful era
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18586
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 13:13
Hi,
 
Guy Guden on his blog, just posted his history about one other thing that he did, that was massive ... that can not be duplicated with CD's or digital works ... yet anyway ... (if Guy was there today he would find a way, I bet!).
 
Because of the effects on radio, off the airwaves, and many other dimensions, one of the things he did a LOT of, was play two records at the same time, with the effect -- of course -- being devastating to the quality of the work. On occasion if missed, but mostly it was awesome, and I remember the day when I even joked ... what would happen if this was done on Tangerine Dream or Klaus Schulze? ... the answer was not long in coming ... there are no words for that result.
 
Later, Guy even did this with sound effects, and what became my personal favorite that no one has ever heard ... classical music ... it never sounded that good, and no conductor ever had the talent to make it sound so good ... and his comedy added to some of it in hilarious fashion ... with some literary stuff and fun stuff about many composers!
 
All in all, it added to the craziness and the insanity that was all together as one person called "Guy Guden" ... that made him extremely progressive for most situations, but not because he only played 3 albums from the top ten ... his favorite line was "none of the hits, none of the time."
 
Guy is finally ... talking about this some, which I think will help his standing with the "progressive" community, though I do not think that he is as interested in that as he was, in the dream of film acting and such that he should have been at, but wasn't, for which radio was a bit of an escape ... complete with its "friends with benefits" thing. 
 
Sadly, Guy is not interested in the 450 or so hours of his shows that I have from 1974 to 1980 ... which feature a lot of these musical bits (his term audio alchemy is used!) ... that most folks will never listen to ... he is pist that I supposedly sold/gave some shows to someone ... 20 years ago ... which I am not sure I did at all ... but he gave me a listing of shows ... that I do NOT have ... which is bizarre!
 
So, since Guy is not cordial enough to even say hi these days, I will make a post elsewhere that will list some of these "phaze'd" things and "audio alchemy". My sincere apologies that no one else will ever hear these things, thus further BURYING the incredible legacy that was Guy in radio ... with so much of this music ... and a lot more, that is not discuss'able here at all!
 
Personal favorites -- that I have:
Tomita - Firebird Suite (3/4's only - had to run from work!)
Klaus Schulze - Body Love 2
Klaus Schulze - Mirage
Led Zeppelin - The Rover (from a weekday show)
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here (in its entirety)
Amon Duul 2 - La Krautoma and Loosey Girls (Made in Germany)
Vangelis - La Fete Sauvage
The Doors - When the Music is Over
 
... and too many others to mention since Guy also did this on his week day shows and sometimes it was ... crazy! Most of the times he was using my copy of the record along with his!


Edited by moshkito - October 03 2012 at 13:30
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7887
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 15:49
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:



[QUOTE=moshkito]



Hi,
 
This applies to MY EXPERIENCE in America ... I can not speak for England and the rest of Europe, although I can tell you that this could easily apply to Short Wave, but I can not speak for its quality.
 
America had FM radio ... and while it started in the 30's, it never became an important mover in music ... until the late 60's when the new FM radio stations became known and heard.
 
The issue?
 
(Mickey Mouse/Goofy description!!!!!!!!)
 
FM radio had two bands, instead of one, like the AM, or Short Wave radio.
 
The difference? ... the "stereo" music could be separated and played as such. Left channel on one side and right channel on the other side.
 
While in a stereo this is not a big deal, except when an instrument goes left or right ... or you hear the girl walk across your path and go into the room to say ... look at all these guitars ... in comparison to the AM radio, or shortwave, this is MASSIVE'ly more realistic and closer to our experience. And on occasion during inclement weather, you know that the bands would bend a little and distort the sound a bit ... the resulting effect is different ... and sometimes off sync ... which adds an effect to the music that makes it ... more interesting! WAYYYY more interesting ... so when Robert Plant would bend "loovvvvvvvvvveeee you ... " in those situations, it would sound WAYYYYYY better tnan any recording!
 
For me, a lot of this music sounded BETTER on the FM radio, than it really did on LP, or anything else, and I was lucky ... Guy Guden in Santa Barbara was a close friend (he's a duckless turkey these days and is too stuck up to say hello, or Merry Christmas!) and roomate (I paid the rent the first 4 years!!!), and the massive amount of music he played, and we enjoyed, was 2nd to none. By comparison, even today, many of the shows out there are all top ten, and not as diversified as Guy's show ever was ... and this is hard to say, because most folks have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am saying ... I will a list of shows and the stuff played for a few select folks here ... for an idea.
 
Two important things here, that I just noticed, as I got me a nice Stanton turntable for my LP's ...
 
1. Turntables at KTYD and the LA stations are EASILY turned down and tuned to about 1 to 2% slower. The end result is that a lot of bass and lower sounds make a lot of rock bands sound "heavier".
 
2. The separation of the channels over the airwaves, to get put together again via your receiver changes the music a wee bit ... and it is VERY DIFFERENT. The best example I can give you is compare the US version of Sgt Peppers with the English version ... comes off much cleaner, deeper and more intense!
 
Now, I can not speak for AM radio as much since they are all about the small singles of old ... but it is not likely that as much manipulation went on that is perceptible ... you don't hear enough of the song to discuss it.
 
In my estimation, this helped a LOT of music sound WAY BETTER than it really is, in many cases ... and while the difference is minor, it made the radio preferable to your own listening ... UNLESS ... you had a massively good stereo system that made the music sound WAYYYYYYY better than most listeners have ever heard. For example, I had a pair of $750 dollar speakers (in 1978!!!) and a turntable and cartridge combo that cost ($500 dollars in 1978 as well) ... which was not top f the line (Bang and Olafson was!) but it was close. The result was very clean and reproduction that was massive and made a lot of this music sound very good, and the radio difference was not an issue ... it was really minor for me ... compared to most.
 
I just had a conversation with a friend that has over 3k LP's and knows his music really well, and one of the things I mentioned was this ... and his comment? ... no wonder some of this digital stuff sounded like crap! ... and he explained that it was not BAD ... jsut not that great, compared to what can be done out there. But I played him some of the same things on the tapes I have (now on mp3) and he was astounded ... he couldn't believe it ... like you all mostly won't either.
 
A lot of it ... has to do with the "medium" that the music came from ... Pink Floyd sounded excellent on the medium, even better than the records themselves in America (all 2nd class quality!) ... and so did Genesis, and ELP and many others ... and it helped sell a lot of this stuff!
 
Thus, as a joke, I like to state that radio ... was a lot more progressive than most of the music itself ... which is not a surprise since almost all of it, became just another commercial piece of music! And it's not getting better today because the fidelity is not important to prog ... the loudness is!
 
I sincerely believe that this helped the "analog" synthesizer sound very different and more interesting than it is today, because there were even more factors that made its sound even more interesting and important ... than it really is ... specially today when the "digital" side of this has pretty much made the sound come off as not as good as it used to be!
 
I just heard Acid Mother's Gong ... and I have to tell you that little moog is very digital, and completely "poor" in quality, by the time you compare its tones to Keith. Toni, Richard, Rick, Patrick, Vangelis ... and many others!





Another insightful quote, M!  Thanks! 
I trained as a studio engineer in Champaign, IL during the Starcastle era and learned about the advantages of FM radio & how they could "clean up" the analog LPs for broadcast, using filtration, compression etc.  Some stations were better than others, it depended upon their equipment suite & the mastery of the broadcast engineer on duty! 
And I concur with your comments about the analog synth having "even more factors that made its sound even more interesting and important..."  The inherent "imperfections" of the devices made for some interesting musical serendipity, as the musicians had to work around tuning

I really enjoyed reading this from you. Very educational. Thank you. Here I thought that fm radio was unrefined crap, but I think you've changed my opinion on that. I think 'the unrefined" as class to the music. Raw is sometimes a bit better in some cases
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
verslibre View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 19360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2012 at 11:15
Originally posted by Josef_K Josef_K wrote:

I would like to blame the record companies mainly for the lack of experimentalism in 80s music. Preset synths can be very useful, like the ARP Pro Soloist for example. Tony Banks used it for some of the greatest lead sounds I've ever heard on the "Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" album, as well as many strange sounds in songs like "The Colony of Slippermen" and "The Waiting Room". Now sure, that instrument still has the analog warmth, but it IS a preset synthesizer. 
 
The root of the problem, IMO, was the immense popularity of the DX-7, D-50 and finally, the M-1. Granted, the latter two had nice quality presets for the time, but due to the larger soundbanks the latter two came with, all those sounds (like the "breathy" D-50 patch) were used ad nauseum. It's stomach-churning to hear those sounds today, really. LOL
Back to Top
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7887
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2012 at 13:09
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:


Originally posted by Josef_K Josef_K wrote:

I would like to blame the record companies mainly for the lack of experimentalism in 80s music. Preset synths can be very useful, like the ARP Pro Soloist for example. Tony Banks used it for some of the greatest lead sounds I've ever heard on the "Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" album, as well as many strange sounds in songs like "The Colony of Slippermen" and "The Waiting Room". Now sure, that instrument still has the analog warmth, but it IS a preset synthesizer. 

 
The root of the problem, IMO, was the immense popularity of the DX-7, D-50 and finally, the M-1. Granted, the latter two had nice quality presets for the time, but due to the larger soundbanks the latter two came with, all those sounds (like the "breathy" D-50 patch) were used ad nauseum. It's stomach-churning to hear those sounds today, really. LOL


Martin Orford of IQ used the yamaha dx-7 on the WAKE album and I just live it. Sounds great. It could never sound dated to me. Kinda timeless entity really. That synth sound is great. Long los and live the 80's!!
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
Stool Man View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 30 2007
Location: Anti-Cool (anag
Status: Offline
Points: 2689
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2012 at 10:19
Apologies if this point has been made already, but surely anyone recording music thinks merely in terms of not sounding dated at that time. 
They don't think "oh dear, this will sound very dated in thirty years time" or whatever.  Caruso didn't sound dated in 1904, he was the first ever million-selling act.  He didn't think about sounding dated thirty years later in 1934. And I'm sure the 1970s prog acts didn't think in terms of sounding dated thirty years later either. 
rotten hound of the burnie crew
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2012 at 10:39
Synths from the 80's sound dated.
            
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18586
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2012 at 14:18
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Synths from the 80's sound dated.
 
Not fair ... you are only spouting our age, not the instrument itself!
 
We don't go around saying that Beethoven sounded dated, or the harpsichord!
 
We can say that a violin sounds better today because the technology that builds it is better, but then, a 200 year old Stratavarious will have thrown that  theory to hell and back! It not only will not sound dated ... it will make many violins sound like cheap high school crap!
 
Your comment is more about your "preferences", than anything else Ivan ...
 
Cool
 
Wink
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2012 at 23:41
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Synths from the 80's sound dated.

I understand what you mean...the thin, sterile sound of the digital synths, integrated into the evolving techno-crap music of the 1980's, makes for some forgettable music.  

Mellotrons and Mini-Moogs never sound "dated" to me, although they can be abused or not played well....the band Big Elf horribly abused their Mellotron when they played along with Scale the Summit, Zappa Plays Zappa and Dream Theater in Chicago.  

Mellotrons were meant to evoke strong emotions...."Supper's Ready" for example.  Never sounds dated to me. 

Cheers, Charles
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2012 at 00:08
I put a lot of effort getting my guitar to sound like an analog synth. I put zero effort into getting it to sound like an 80s digital synth.
Back to Top
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7887
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2012 at 15:37
Anyone think VANGELIS's music sounds dated? Ie. albums like THE CITY, SPIRAL and BLADERUNNNER. Thoughts?
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 18 2012 at 00:29
I may be a bit ahead of the times.. but to me.. digital music sounds very dated.  Modern production values using pro tools and other techy "fix all" post recording software intervention sounds sterile and over produced.  Bands are ashamed to release material that sounds natural and organic.  The quest for perfection is now attainable for anyone with cubase in their apartment with a drum sampler, a keyboard with 8000 patches and one guitar and bass with endless amp modeling plugins. 

Staying on topic here.. the keyboard is the easiest thing to midi or attach a new sound to a key,or layers etc. 

The problem is that good art is about the imperfections as much as the perfection.  You need both.. you need a balance of skill but feel. Tight but open and able to breath.  Can one imagine a drummer not on a click track.  What a nightmare in post production not being able to quantize or sync to.

The older keyboards had problems.. but they often also had tubes in them and other unstable components like tape reels or analog oscillators.  Personality.. temperamental... things that also invoke human emotion... like frustration, anger, of the joy of "my gear is actually working tonight"

Analog tape machines are still a better way to record on many levels.  If not for the simple fact it's limitations keep the artist more honest.  "Do I really need to nail this live in the studio" "Really?  no way to fix my incompetence?  Am I really going to have to shed and learn my instrument?"

1975 answer... sorry .. but YES!

2012 answer.. that's fine.. no worries, we'll fix that up for you with no problem, just another 45 minutes of studio time.

Prog took a dive, not because Punk rock arrived.. but because Prog bands stopped making great albums.. and the ones that came along later like Marillion and Spock's Beard helped in a big way... but didn't "out prog" their forefathers.

Look what happened to the keyboard picture. 
How is "Love Beach" compared to "Tarkus"
"Tormato" compared to "Close to the Edge"
"Giant for a Day" compared to "Power and the Glory"
We can't Dance" compared to "Foxtrot"

While hindsight is everything.. it's more the keyboard sounds that caramelized the music than guitar, bass or drum sounds.. until of course the sampled drums arrived.

Just because you can do it ....doesn't mean you should.
This speaks for the digital revolution as well.

I love roots prog.. and I love early Black Sabbath.. but I don't like prog metal.  It lacks emotional dimension and the playing is far to robotic.  I should like it.. I like prog and Sabbath.  I like early Rush.  I could not be more ripe for a proper prog metal release.. but I don't like any of it.  I think a lot has to do with the keyboard sounds and how they are integrated.

Deep Purple had heavy sounding keys.. and Lord and Blackmore knew how to blend that into a special sonic tonic.
I don't feel that at all with Dream Theater.. but I should.. the playing is much more technically slick.. and it's prog type playing.. but what is the missing ingredient (s)? Why does it not move me?  Why was I yawning all through their set in San Francisco this last summer?  I shouldn't. 
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 18 2012 at 00:51
Before the digital age.. the thing that really made the prog bands shine were their ability to play their instruments better than other rock band players.  People knew when they heard it.. it was special.. because even though they could punch on tape machines.. they still had to play it.  So even at a subconscious level... the general public KNEW there was something special going on.  A Wakeman solo album like 6 Wives was at least RESPECTED.. even if one didn't care for the music. 

Nowadays.. you play something virtuosic for a teen or 20 something.. and they think you just did it on your Mac in Garage Band or whatever.  There is no correlation between organic skill and musicianship on a computer program.
Anyone can do anything (to a untrained ear) and this is how the masses see it. 

The Respect is gone to the general public and this is why prog has fallen out of fashion.  Enjoy the great old stuff.. because it will never happen again.

The new stuff is simply that.. it's new.. but one day it will be old.. and compared equally to the classic older stuff and will pale in hindsight on many levels. 

The pre digital age... the post digital age.

If you like the newer stuff.. metal stuff.. etc.. you are under 40 years old.  If you are over 40 and prefer the new stuff.. you are likely listening to it on CD through solid state amplification, and are not hearing it in the same way as you did back in the 70's with your better analog system or at a friend's garage sitting on his parents used corduroy couch with four stacks of JBL's ready to blast you into eternity.  Ipods, MP3, itunes, or earbuds will NOT get you there... especially those great organic keyboard sounds. 


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.131 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.