Analog Synths sound dated?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=75588
Printed Date: May 21 2025 at 01:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Analog Synths sound dated?
Posted By: The Quiet One
Subject: Analog Synths sound dated?
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:15
|
When I was listening to National Health with my dad on the car, he was annoyed with the extensive use of synths, I was surprised since he likes some Prog, especially Yes with Wakeman. But with my brother we said to ourselves, "oh that's odd". But then, I go and read some reviews in Amazon by various jazz fusion bands, and saying that most of the synths are "dated". I really can't hear that.
There are some dated stuff, mainly due to production, but the synth work by Corea, Hancock and the like, in most cases don't really sound dated at all, I mean that's the sound of the synths!!
So guys, what do you think? Are Analog Synths from the 70s dated and we as Prog fans don't really care, or do you think that that's how synths should really sound?
Feel free to share examples of 70s synths that you consider dated, and we can generate some discussion.
|
Replies:
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:22
Of course you can't hear that, as your tastes reside largely in 70s rock/fusion if I'm not wrong.  A decent method to check how dated is a certain sound is to see where are today's musicians getting their inspiration from. This way it could be said that the typical 70s Moog sound is not in fashion these days in mainstream rock, while the 80s unorganic synth sound (especially Korg) is a major source of inspiration now due to the 80s revival we're experiencing. In prog, I'd say things haven't change much, the major tendency is to sound as 70s as possible. |
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:23
|
Analog synths are nowhere near as dated as the digital synths that were popular in the 1980s.
Compare the synths on the first two National Health albums with the ones used on their only '80s album D.S. al Coda.
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:31
This, but analog synthesizers do sound dated. -------------   
|
zravkapt wrote:Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:40
|
'Dated sound' is a very blurry term. One sound can drop out of favour, but when 'comeback' strikes, the sound is not dated any more. Everything is back in fashion, every retro sound has it own, retro niche: from analog synth of the 70's, analog 80's polysynths, early digital synths, old drum machines or Commodore 64 SIM chip sounds. Here's a band from the 2000's - but there's not a single sound that couldn't be heard in the middle 80's. ------------- |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 16:46
Wise words. |
Posted By: MrEdifus
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 17:27
|
In a way, they do, in that it is a very 70s sound, and the only bands that use it these days are ones that sound as though they would be right at home in the 70s. This doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds bad.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 17:47
|
I don't think so. If the production is modern, the synths are used in a different situation. They're just a different sound. To me, this is the equivalent of someone saying "acoustic guitars sound dated" or "violins sound dated". Just doesn't make sense to me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 18:04
|
Some synths produce sounds that we can associate with certain eras because of the prominence of them in that era, but "dated" is a weird way to say that, in my opinion. Most sounds have their place, and just because they way they were used in the pasts evokes different feelings in people, doesn't mean that should be thought of negatively. I always think back to Steve Roach's Structures from Silence (1984). I don't know his exact synth list for that album, but there is likely a mix of digital and analog synthesizers, with more digital on Dreamtime Return (1988). Both are ambient classics, and Structures, in particularly, is one of the most comforting, velvety, dare I say "warm" albums I know. And what would it take for a band not to sound dated? Even if you had supersaws everywhere it could be traced to the mid 90s trance movement. Dated? Or is this an acceptable form of dated (sarcasm)?
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 18:05
I would suggest that's not such a perfect example. Mostly because of the amount of time those instruments have been a part of music. In a word centuries. The synth is really a new instrument relatively speaking and the memoery of it's origins is fresh in our minds ear. So in that context I would say the synths of the 70's and 80's do sound dated as I can date the genealogy of the timbre. Now, when a band uses one of these "dated" synth sounds in a unique composition they may have less of a tendency to evoke memories of that time period. I'd have to do some research to cite specific examples. ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 19:17
|
They can't help it. They were made that way. If they do sound dated, that's just part of the charm. That and all the patch cords they have. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Acidchrist
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 19:28
|
I love the sound of 70s synths, especially those of Chick Corea and the like. I don't think they sound dated. I can't get enough of them.
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 19:46
|
As a keyboard player, this topic actually strikes pretty close to home. I always wondered, why can the guitar player get away with owning/playing a Les Paul or Strat for years, but I'm always just behind the curve of what keyboard is hip? It gets expensive. Other than the piano, the keyboard world has always been a latest, greatest free-for-all, which in general has meant only successfully working musicians or trust-fund babies can afford them. Keyboards do uniquely sync to a place and time and style of music, which I'd say generally is not typical of other instruments (other than the Telecaster sound being associated with country music, the Les Paul being associated with blues, etc.). The only exception I suppose are the original Hammond organs (L100, M3, B3) which seem to have found a niche. Too bad they haven't been made for decades. But think about it. Other than pianos or Hammonds, what are the keyboards? British bands (c. 1965 etc....Dave Clark Five, Animals): Vox Continental, which gives those bands a dated sound. Garage bands (c. 1966-67...? and the Mysterians): Farfisa, later resurrected by Steve Nieve (Elvis Costello) for retro reasons, on say This Year's Girl. Wurilitzer electric piano (c. 1970)...listen to a little Spirit and countless others. Fender Rhodes (c. 1969-75). Keyboard of choice for the early fusion bands. Hohner Clavinet (70's). Think Stevie Wonder and pretty much every funk band on the planet. Moog Synthesizers. 70's. You know the names. Emerson, primarily. ARP Synthesizers. 70's. Again, you know the names. Wakeman, Townsend, Hancock, Zawinul. Mellotron. 70's. What?! Mellotron dated. Never. You know the bands. Yamaha DX-7. The standard synth for any 80's pop song and immediately recognizable. There were a slew of other synths in the 80's (Prophet V, Oberheim, etc.). Now what all these have in common is that they no longer exist. Oh, there's a few here and there, but really any decent workstation (Yamaha, Korg, Roland) or soft synth can now more or less approximate the sound, which in this day and age is apparently good enough, at least compared to the relative expense of maintaining a real B3, a real Mellotron, a real Moog or ARP. So yes the sound of any of these I suppose is dated. Doesn't mean it's bad. Just means they are generally associated with a particular time and place. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 19:53
|
Unless I'm mistaken, the DX-7 is not analog. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 20:03
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 20:13
Prophet, analog. Mellotron, electro-mechanical.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dgregsound
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 22:15
|
The main reason I feel analog synths (at least monophonic ones) sound dated in 70's prog is because there is an undeniable warmth to their sound. This is due to the fact that they were recorded strictly on tape and processed thru old school pre-amps and compressors. But another major factor is that analog synth filters (the parameter that controls cut-off frequency and resonance of an oscillators signal) are not made the way they were in the 70's. The filter has a big effect on the overall timbre of a synth and I guarantee if you compare an original Mini-Moog's filter to one of the new Voyager's filter, you would notice a distinct difference. Personally I feel that this quality is anything but dated. Once polyphonic synthesizers started being utilized in more popular music, that warmth and distinct sound was lost forever. The fact that vintage properties of early synths became less prevalent in music doesn't mean it has a "dated sound". The instruments uniqueness will now forever be associated with the music presented on this website.
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 22:45
|
I still have my old analog ARP monophonic dude. I can assure you all, and I'm probably preaching to the choir, that sucker still can kick ass against any softsynth or wavetable equivalent. It's a nasty beast and I do not unchain it often, nor let it out of that room down in the basement where it lives, lest it escape. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 23:34
|
This reminds me of something that I find very ironic and inconsistent among prog fans. A lot of prog fans seem to hate neo prog because it sounds regressive and not progressive(in the literal sense)and yet many of these bands use digital keyboards. Meanwhile many of these same prog fans prefer analog keyboards in their prog(which were used in the seventies). I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. You criticize neo for being retro and yet the so called real prog bands you like use analog keyboards. That doesn't make sense to me. To answer the original posters question though, I would have to say it depends on the context of the music. Some of it does sound dated. To me that's not necessarily a bad thing though. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 01:48
I like the sound of analog synths. Not sure why it matters that they are ''dated''
(I'm sure Moshkito will put up a very long post soon about the only thing that matters is the music )
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 01:52
| Analog synths sound to me, say, more "human". |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 01:58
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 02:44
Yes, of course.That results that the vynil albums sound superior.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 05:07
This is what I'm being saying for ages. The golden era of prog ended more-or-less abouth the same time synthesizers became polyphonic. And I agree new Voyagers don't sound as authentic as old Mini Moogs: I think discrete components for their filters are simply not available any more. That doesn't mean other analogs (even new ones) doesn't sound good in their own right: I don't mind Curtis/SSM chips at all. ------------- |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 12:36
Well, because using digital keyboards or updating equipment per se does not make the music progressive? I think preferring a certain aesthetic is not regressive in itself but I would agree that people often claim not to like the music if it doesn't have those 70s sounds, which is a contradictory stance. |
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 14:12
|
i think it depends on the synth. The minimoog has influenced pretty much everything to come after it and has never really sounded dated because most things attempt to sound like it still today, it's a timeless instrument like the Les Paul and Stratocaster of Keyboards. But things like Arp's and early polysynths to me do sound dated at times. -------------  
|
Posted By: Anthony H.
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 14:22
|
If "dated" means "sex in my ears", then yes.
-------------  |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 14:50
|
Hi,
It's a perception issue, nothing else.
What is called "analog synthesizer" these days is akin to a musical instrument ... what is called "digital synthesizer" these days is not an instrument ... it's a "workstation" and a replacement for a lot of other instruments in an orchestra or otherwise.
In those days, synthesizers were used as an INSTRUMENT and many players solo'd with it. Folks like Rick Wakeman and Keith Emerson pushed that envelop and also started using the synthesizers as an instrument from an orchestra, for the most part the string and organ sounds, with slight variations to make them more attractive and not as copycat.
The old debate that one is warmer than the other, isstrictly a preference and has nothing to do with anything else. If it were the opposite and digital came first we would be saying the same thing since that was what we heard first and got more familiar with. But how it is used, as an instrument by itself, or as a replacement for the strings in an orchestra (let's say) .... yeah ... the real thing will always sound better and warmer ... but then, I'm also gonna say, that you have not been listening to some things out there ... Miroslav samples are insanely good and even Genesis and many other bands have been using them for years, which means that our perception is slanted,... and badly so!
An instrument is, really, never outdated. We may think that the contracello is outdated, but it is still used in orchestras and there are many pieces that have parts written for them ... thus, an analog synth will always have a spot here and there, depending on how the musicians uses it and brings it alive.
No one sits here and says that Miles is out dated ... we might say that Chuck Berry sounds out dated ... but instruments themselves don't usually die and disappear ... they morph into other instruments. In the end, an analog synthesizer is going to last a lot more than the other synthesizers, that these days are a dime a dozen ... and more often than not too difficult for anyone to do anything with it, unless you have a year off work, and get paid to learn it. An analog synthesizer is more of an "experiencial" thing than an instrument, since one can change things as they feel them an dillustrate them with their vision, and that is not something that a regular "instrument" does as well. It has other sonic structures, based on its differences in sounds and effects, that almost all instruments do not have and can not produce at all.
In the end, the "Analog Synthesizer" will be remembered. All others will not be called synthesizers anymore because ... they aren't! ... they are samplers and workstations whose job is to help you stay organized during a performance and bring up the sound samples when you need them ... the keyboard player only "plays" when he/she is doing a solo ... which is one of the reasons why in so many of the bands these days, I do not consider their "keyboard" player ... because he's not playing ... and he probably couldn't play a lick if he was slapped into doing it! I might as well go sample everything and then ... show you how good I am ... and I didn't play a single chord, and you thought I was great!
It's a 100% perception issue ... ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 18:03
|
Have to strongly disagree with you on that. My keyboard is a digital synth and is most definitely a musical instrument and not a workstation.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 18:24
|
I really don't see much of a practical difference for calling a thing a "synthesizer" whether is produces a pure sine wave and one that's sampled accurately, as in many digital synthesizers. My perception on the issue is that, for a well-priced subtractive digital synthesizer with good components, if you can't get it to make sounds as pleasing as analog synths, then it's a result of less than stellar programming, not just because "it's a digital synth." (All else being equal, that is assuming the interfaces are reasonably similar with a similar number of parameters, knobs, and means of synthesis.) ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 19:10
inb4 B& due to sexual innuendo. -------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 19:16
|
Synth sound programming is my biggest passion, even bigger then prog rock music, I admit it.  It's possible to squeeze some good analog-like sounds from a digital synth (yes, even DX 7 and Casio CZ series), but it's usually just a fraction of the sonic spectrum. It also depends of which analog sounds you want to produce, and using which digital synth...they all behave and sound different. If you're going for 'exactly that squelchy Moog lead with 20% of oomph and 30% of buzz', most likely you won't get it. But you'll get a dozen of other interesting sounds as you're fiddling with parameters. Synths are endless fun! ------------- |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 19:17
Also perhaps that the listeners may not like specific the tones the musicians are using. |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 19:41
|
70s synth work sounds quite natural to me. I love the sound of 80s really low-tech synths by todays standards I'm sure, but they really do sound of a time. I think that is what is meant by dated; of a time, but its been converted into a slur of sorts, hence the form of the word "dated" It's like you look at a photograph of your dad or mum in period clothes, do we choose to think to ourselves "OMG, dated!" or "Of its time, he/she was stylin!" It's a matter of perspective. To me I can sympathize with what they synthesized back then more than now  |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 21:53
|
^^ I think this was what I was getting at. Certain keyboards are associated with certain eras. It is in that sense dated, not necessarily 'bad'.
So to go back to a couple of references.
If a band, say Elvis Costello of This Year's Girl, has a keyboard player who uses a Farfisa, it will have an unmistakable 60's sound, though while used in a more modern songwriting concept will still scream 'retro'. If some unknown band in 2012 decides to use a Hohner Clavinet, the music will have a 70's funk sound. I don't know whether it will scream 'retro' or not, but more than likely it will.
In a sense it's actually the same with actual song choices. When Emerson plays a Meade Lux Lewis tune, it is dated to a particular place and time. It's not bad, it's a re-creation of that place and time. That he chooses to make the piano sound like one of those old honky tonk ones, it's not bad, though it is dated.
But back to analog synths. They were of a time. They were monophonic, a hugely limiting factor compared to what is available now, or even in the 80's. So yes, they have a dated sound, and no it's not a bad sound. It's identifiable with an era.
Now I'm getting even more confused
 ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 21:58
I don't really consider "dated" to be an insult even if it is meant as one. Take the harpsichord. Dated? Yes. So what?  I've never played a real one. What I'd really like to get my fingers on is one of those massive pipe organs. My Grandparents on my Dad's side had this two keyboard electric organ. I no longer remember the brand. My Grandparents on my Mom's side had an old clunky old non-electric organ. |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:02
I don't find the monophony limiting, quite the contrary in fact. ------------- |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:04
I like being as phony as possible. May have been a harmonium. It looked kind of like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Harmoniumfrisia.jpg" rel="nofollow">  Had to be a harmonium. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:06
|
Thanks everyone for their posts, some were really insightful and informative (not sure if it's exactly the same lol).
I was actually referring to 'dated' as sounding bad. Because, well, anyone who says that something that sounds dated is criticizing it. But I agree with you guys, of course the Analog Synths are dated, as are many other keyboards, but that doesn't mean they sound bad.
I just simply don't get how some perfectly "normal" synth sounds like those from Corea or Hancock are considered 'bad sounding'. I can understand if a late 60's, early 70s synth sounds bad, but not really the other.
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:31
But many did, hence the popularity of the Oberheim and Prophet synths. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:37
|
I don't really see how they sound dated. Analog synths sound so full, whereas many digital synths sound VERY thin and too video game like. I'll take a Moog over a digital synth tone any day. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:40
This. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: February 02 2011 at 22:48
|
Analog synths are sampled a lot in pop and rap. so no.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 15:55
I'm still not tired of playing around with the Jupiter 8v software ... and have been mixing it up with other things ... yeah ... endless fun is about the only word for it and then some ... dammn it ... I have to go to work in the morning! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 18:58
Neither do I. These "critics" on Amazon are generally a clueless lot.
Exactamundo. Sounds like those of the Clav, Fender Rhodes, deep Moog bass, etc., are timeless, unlike DX bass, which I now associate with Seinfeld more than anything. ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 19:15
I can forgive DX everything...except that awful, awful crystal-glassy electric 'Rhodes' piano.
------------- |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 19:30
|
I dislike the idea of trying to recreate other instruments with a synthesizer. Not facsimiles used for a similar texture in a composition, mind you, but legitimately trying to recreate a piano. I guess it's a cool challenge to try to get it right, but the synth has so many possibilities for for creating new and exciting textures, with weird filters and effects. Sometimes it can work out right. Bass textures in particular can get quite good and useful. Even still I find a bass sound most naturally synthesized to be something easily and happily distinguished as a synthesizer (fat Moog lines, etc.).
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 20:31
I want to start a Fairlight CMI fan club, by the lack of God I love those things....  I will never have one / play one / see one, but what's cooler than corny distorted sampling? Greatest . Synthesizer . Ever And yes, Zee's Identity does Rock, and you can't persuade me otherwise Dave Harris: Communicaaation's Mis-sing, In Every Thing I Sa-ay, Rick Wright: WAH wah waaah WAAAH!!!!! Diong Diong, Webit Wibit!!! |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 01:21
You are right, just using updated equipment in itself does not make the music progressive. But then that opens up the whole can of worms which is "what is prog?" Then again can it be truly progressive if it is using the old equipment? If prog is suppose to be progressive then everything about it should be. That was my point. I personally don't care because I'm not too caught up in the labels. I like a certain sound too and yes I do tend to prefer the sound of the analog synths. I think one reason a lot of prog fans don't like neo prog is because they tend to use digital synths. |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 01:40
|
I've always said that a prog fan complaining about synths sounding dated is like a metalhead complaining about music being too aggressive.
I frankly don't care if it's dated or not, most of the things I like ARE considered very dated, I'm not too interested in modern things.
All I know is that I love the sound of synths. Moog and Arp especially. I'm not as fond of modern software synthesizers that find their way in a lot of contemporary pop and rap music. I'm puzzled as to why people call the Moog cheesy while listening to crappy pop music riddled with Yamaha Software Synths. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 08:22
|
Definitely an analog lover. My ears are accustomed to the sound which combines a pleasing rough-edged quality with a certain amount of warmth and doesn't seem as clinical as a lot of newer synth sounds. It's obviously in the ear of the beholder as I played something to my younger, indie loving sister the other day that I thought had a corking analog synth sound. She started laughing and said it sounded like the soundtrack to some cheesey 70s cop show.  ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 10:23
|
The Moog legacy continues: even the newest versions of Cubase have synth patches entitled "Lucky Man"....... I agree about monophonic sometimes being useful too..... you can hold down one note and play other ones, meaning the first note will sound in between them (basically making you sound like you can play twice as fast as before!) Some early 90's synth sounds literally make me squirm in my chair............ ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 10:30
theres a free synth patch in Logicpro called "Emerson square" and one of the protools synths has patches like "Moogish lead" "minotaurus". I just love the fact that all these prog references and tools are hiding in plain site  -------------
|
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 10:55
Is that pun some kind of simultaneous dig at Prog Archives? Or did you mispell? ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 11:32
i would love to take credit for it as a great piece of wit, but i did misspell -------------
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 04 2011 at 13:48
Yeah ... but by the time that you run some of Trilian though one of those Galen-Kruger stacks ... and all of a sudden, you don't know the difference ... damn ... Stanley Clarke never sounded that good!
Technology changes and improves and gets better with time. The main difference, is that the old "analog synths" had sounds, that no other instrument could do ... and that is going to be its legacy and the main reason why the instrument will not go away.
The hard part, though, is that almost all synthesizers sold in music stores are total crap and even in the case here in Vancouver, the guy did not know what "analog" was ... I think he did, but he had no idea that music existed using it, or what it really was! That's how bad he sounded!
I would say that what hurt synths the most in those days, was that they were trying to replace the bass (first -- which led to sequencers according to Tangerine Dream and Roland), and then, almost at the same time, to replace the strings, or add strings to other music, most of which would be considered popular music -- since most popular music could not afford a string section for their work in order to delineate their thoughts and wishes.
But, sooner or later, it will mean that you and I can see Turandot done by synthesizers and get rid of some of the egos that usually plague so many of those operas, and spend more time on the staging and details to take the card board attitudes out, and ... voila ... as good as a rock opera and then some ... and with the synthesizer you will be able to get louder and lower and have a greater flexibility on the presentation of the music in order to accentuate the details better ... which is very difficult to do when you are dealing with 100 stooges!
It goes both ways ... but some purists, and I ain't no weergeen, only those old sounds and the moving of the LFO knobs (for example) make it an instrument ... and yeah ... I agree to an extent ... but let's not get silly and say that other work was not done that is also very good. People like Vangelis, Sakamoto, Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze, were absolutely massive in the development of these instruments ... and you ought to research Edgar Froese's stories about the echo tapes and other adventures! I'm just hoping that he writes them down before he leaves us, because the stories are priceless ... albeit there is a perception that he is not bringing his kittykat side out, and ... ------------- 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 |
Posted By: The Willow Farmer
Date Posted: February 05 2011 at 20:10
|
Good music never sounds dated....NEVER. Well, except the good music that does sound dated.
Synths are always cool, except when they don't.
I make alot of sense, unless i make none.
Thank You
|
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 10 2011 at 22:59
Ah, yes. The "Doogie Howser" DX Rhodes! ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 08:27
|
Does the Hammond Organ sound dated? It doesn't really exist anymore in its original form, and few modern bands incorporate the sound, but I don't think it sounds dated at all. Likewise, I don't think the Moog is dated, although I can agree that at times the ARP and Mellotron can sound dated, not that that's a bad thing.
------------- 
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 13:46
I like saying that none of us are ever complaining about Mozart's Violin Concertos. ... so sorry Petrucci that we have to trash some stuff you do ... it's undeserved! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 17:25
I agree! Tony Banks made extensive use of the Arp Pro-Soloist, and that sounds very dated (even back then, I didn't care for the sound all that much). He transitioned to the Poly-Moog on "And Then There Were Three," and got a very nice sound of out it. Moog is still in business, see: http://www.moogmusic.com/voyager/?section=product&product_id=21396" rel="nofollow - http://www.moogmusic.com/voyager/?section=product&product_id=21396 Generally, I find modern digital synth technology to be less fun than this old stuff! It was great to grab a handful of oscillator & filter controls and wrongle the crap out of these things! The MASTER of all that was, without a doubt, Patrick Moraz during "Relayer"! I saw that tour twice, and my God, he seemed to nearly break the knobs off of that Mini-Moog! Think of the synth solos on "Sound Chaser". I'm not much of a keyboard player, but these days, I'd want a top-notch workstation synth (like the Roland Fantom, see http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=589" rel="nofollow - http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=589 ) for the Mellotron & Hammond patches, an analog synth with LOTS of knobs, and.....well, throw money!!
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 17:30
The Roland Fantom is fantastic but i find those sorts of high end keyboards a little fiddly and in the end not worth the thousands you can spend on them. If i was to go for a new Moog i'd definitely go out and buy the LittlePhatty it is a fantastic piece of kit that i saw Oliver Wakeman use with Yes and it had an incredible sound that cut through everything like a proper moog should. -------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 17:35
I would think otherwise, Tony Bank's ARP use gave a new sound not heard often by Prog bands from the time, and the sound still sounds fresh today like the solos on Firth of Fifth and The Cinema Show.
The Mini-Moog on the other hand, the early stuff made by Emerson or other early users of the instrument, make it sound very dated.
But this is just pure subjective talk, not really the purpose of my thread...
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 17:41
Tony definitely did some great innovative stuff with the arps like some of the Arp 2600 on songs like In That Quiet Earth but i think the Pro Soloist was as an instrument very influential but as a sound far from timeless, The Cinema Show and Firth of Fifth still sound great but i think others like Riding The Scree could definitely be outdone by later Synths. -------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 17:44
|
^yeah, Riding the Scree does sound a bit "dirty"/annoying at times. But so did the Moog, Wakeman's use on Tales and Going for the One particulary shows some screechings.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 11 2011 at 18:54
Or even catch a bit of his stuff on the Refugee album ... not as blatant as it was on Relayer, but quite good.
You almost don't need to buy a synthesizer with that much money ... go over to Arturia.com and play with the Jupiter 8V ... or go over to IKMultimedia and play with Miroslav Philharmonic and all that ... and all of a sudden, having some of those units is not really necessary, and the Jupiter 8V done as the VST, and through my Midi, is far more versatile than it was before, for example.
Mellotron and Hammond sounds are so well known, and so specific that it is hard to not think "original", but when it is being played and it is well done, I doubt that anyone would think that the version that was on the Fairlight was not good, or well used.
The Jupiter 8v software sounds excellent in a big system, and can easily make the old bands sound cheesy. Not to mention that carrying it around is much safer these days ... it's just a computer.
The nice thing about that workstation is that it is also a midi keyboard. I have almost all the controls on the Jupiter 8v software on my midi, on sliders and knobs (Oxygen 61 by M-Audio) and I can tell you that it is really hard to get bored ... and I have not yet clicked on the top portion to get to the sequencer or the effects I can add to the whole thing! It's endless! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 01:23
Thanks!! Great advice! I've looked at the M-Audio & other software synths, but as a very poor keyboardist, I tend to focus on the bass & 6-string guitar stuff first! Really good keys are fun to noodle around with!
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 01:56
|
People riff on Tony Bank's ARP synth all the time, I really don't know what those people are smoking because I think ARP synth is goddamn awesome. His synth solos are my favorite thing about Genesis and that's saying a lot.
If anything, I actually think the ARP sounds less dated than other synths popular in the 70s, and yes that includes the moog. I find Banks' synth work to be pretty timeless, it doesn't sound "70s" to me at all. If anything I consider Genesis the least 70s sounding of the big prog bands of that era, save maybe King Crimson.
Keep in mind that when I use the term "dated" I simply mean something that's easily associated with a bygone era and is hardly modern. That is NOT the same as being bad or cheesy or whatever.
NES games are dated, they're also f**king awesome. Black Eyed Peas are not dated, and they suck. Many "dated" things are preferable to what we have now. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 02:52
You may not find a lot of support re Banks because I guess, at least instrument wise, Hackett's solos are the favourite part of Genesis for most fans. Genesis's work doesn't sound so 70s-ish because it's less tied to many other 70s cliches. Contrast them to Yes, especially circa Yes album/Fragile, or Kansas and the latter have some overlap with Deep Purple. Genesis and King Crimson, or Gentle Giant for that matter, were more individualistic and harder to pin down in terms of era. But it's not imo Banks's synth tones that give Genesis that timeless quality you speak of and in many instances like Battle of Epping Forest it gives away the era (not that that's such a bad thing).
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:13
|
I just find something bizarre about someone claiming to be a Genesis fan and NOT liking Banks contributions, as they're such a dominant force in the band. It's like calling yourself a King Crimson fan but saying you hate Fripp's guitar work, it makes absolutely no sense at all. Of course Banks didn't use synths (frequently at least) until Selling England, and IMO that was a crucial development in their sound. Banks' equipment upgrades were a huge part of what made that album sound so much grander in scope than previous albums.
I love the contributions of every member of the band. But I think Banks has always been the most irreplaceable. I still love Genesis without Gabriel, I even still love them without Hackett, but Genesis without Banks is just unfathomable.
Then again, when Phil left............................................. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:17
I would qualify it as I unconditionally like Banks's contributions as composer up to W&W but am more selective with regard to his playing. And it makes sense that people would mention Hackett more because in spite of having a less dominant role, his contributions shined better and it's hard to think of a better stand out moment in the capacity of individual musician for any of the Genesis members than the Firth...solo. Banks was their most prolific composer but not their most talented player. Re SEBTP (or Lamb for that matter), it wasn't just the change of equipment but much improved production that contributed to it. I think some of their best playing is on Nursery Cryme but it's let down by poor production.
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:37
|
I admit that Hackett is the most skilled player in the band. I don't prefer Banks to him THAT much, he is one of my favorite guitarists after all.
Banks and Hackett were the two soloists of the band, and IMO their solos are equally awesome. But I don't mind Hackett's departure too much.
Contrary to popular belief, change isn't bad. It allowed Hackett to produce some stellar solo material without pressure from his former bandmates, and Genesis survived without him, for a while anyway. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:40
Not so sure about that, let's not forget poor, much-maligned and much-bashed Phil Collins, by all means a monster drummer, but a monster capable of showing sensitivity (Cinema Show). And re Hackett, I am happy Hackett left Genesis but not so happy that Genesis lost Hackett.
It took more out of them than what he lost by not being part of THE Genesis. |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:45
|
Yeah, Collins skill is pretty underestimated.
I think leaving Genesis was a good thing for Hackett, and while it wasn't exactly a great thing for Genesis, I still think their post Hackett work is better than prog fans give it credit for.
I think ATTWT was decent, I think Duke/Abacab/Genesis made an excellent trilogy of pop music, I think Invisible Touch was mediocre but it had it's moments (The Brazilian, Land of Confusion), I won't defend We Can't Dance though.
Good thing they never made another album after that. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:49
I've never seen criticisms of his solo's around, in fact things like The Cinema show and In The Cage are some of the most positively mentioned Genesis moments, i absolutely adore the solos themselves when done on the Arp 2600 but some of the live versions switched to the Arp live, like robbery, assault and battery on seconds out just sound dated at times, this isn't saying i hate the solos or sound, just facing the facts that the Pro-Soloist was an early synth with a few dated sounds on it -------------
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:54
|
I recall that one Foxtrot review from Alitare where he said Tony Banks "sucks nard".
The main reason I returned to this forum is because I noticed that idiot's absence, as soon as he returns I'm gone. Because I can't cohabitate with someone like that without having a massive meltdown that destroys everything in it's path. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 06:28
sounds like a sh*te review but the internet is full of trolls i learn to tune it out -------------
|
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 13 2011 at 00:34
Don't forget Rutherford, who was (is) an AMAZING bassist!! I enjoyed the simplicity of the keyboards in early Genesis.....the dual use of Mellotron/organ on the opening bars of "Watcher of the Skies" still sends chills up my spine! Bank's Hammond solo during "Apocalypse in 9/8" is one of the best keyboard solos in prog, ever! And, his piano solo in "Firth of Fifth" is nothing short of amazing!! Banks sensitive touch on the Mellotron was superior to nearly all of his contemporaries, and he also used a light touch on the synth. I tend to overlook the occasional odd sounds that he obtained from the synth, and focus on the other keys. Frankly, I don't know if it IS possible to have a "dated" keyboard sound in prog! The work of Tangerine Dream remains very vital, and artists such as John Hawken of the Strawbs did amazing things with harpsichord, Minimoog etc.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 13 2011 at 01:21
Ditto, I prefer Banks's mellotron work or even piano work. His synth stuff is also compositionally very interesting but I don't feel that I have to necessarily like the tones he uses to enjoy their music overall. Yeah, Hawken's work for Strawbs is lovely.
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: February 13 2011 at 15:15
| Regardless of which equipment he used, Banks did a hell of great music, no doubt about that! |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 03:23
Yeah Rutherford is a fantastic bassist. I also think people are too harsh on his gutiar work too. He's not in the same league of Hackett by any means whatsoever, but his style is so different it's stupid to compare IMO. He favours simple rhythm playing and atmospheric solos over flashy stuff which I think suited 80s Genesis just fine.
A good example is the ambient Pink Floyd-ish outro to Home by the Sea where he and Banks both create a really cool atmosphere together, and on the following track. Just because they went mainstream doesn't mean they forgot how to play. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 13:25
Good point on Rutherford's guitar playing! He is more than decent, and I especially enjoy his 12-sting work. I saw Daryl and Mike switch off on bass & guitar duties on the ATTWT tour, it was great! Both were excellent on both instruments! I've done that type of thing in my own bands. I've always enjoyed reading up on interviews with prog keyboardists, as I am but a lowly prog bassist (and decent prog guitarist) who looks at the array of white & black keys, going "Huh??" About the only thing I play well is Mellotron, 'cause you only need a few fingers & know major & minor chords!! Banks used the Polymoog on ATTWT, listen to how he "bends" the string chords in the song "Snowbound." In an interview, he said this is accomplished with a pedal. The Polymoog was the first truly polyphonic synth, and he replaced Mellotron and some other keys with it. It makes for a rather amazing effect. http://www.vintagesynth.com/moog/polymoog.php" rel="nofollow - http://www.vintagesynth.com/moog/polymoog.php
|
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 13:38
|
Here, this has some LOVELY Banks' synth work!! You can hear the Polymoog in its full glory! Nothing dated here to my ears, just classic prog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckq5nq80mDc" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckq5nq80mDc
|
Posted By: Anirml
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 18:23
|
The Novochord from the 1930's is amazing! Just listen here and this one and this one ------------- 
|
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 15 2011 at 12:24
Thanks! That stuff is amazing! Hey, how do I embed YouTube into this forum? That is better than dropping a link in! Cool stuff, I always enjoy learning about the history of modern music! The VC3 synth was a big factor in early electronic stuff, and the Mellotron was based on the Chamberlin. There was another tape-beastie called the "choir organ" that is prominently used on "Wolf City" by Amon Duul 2!
|
Posted By: Antennas
Date Posted: February 16 2011 at 12:05
But oh-so-true. It's no coincidence that even a band like Opeth tries to revive those 'dated' sounds again. ------------- 
Jesus never managed to figure out the theremin either |
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: February 16 2011 at 18:33
|
If you listen to really good, well-engineered and produced music, there is a lot happening per second. That is, sonically there is a lot of difficult to produce, complex information being flashed before your brain. Really good synth sounds are the same way. I don't think they will ever sound bad. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 04:23
Yes, I can agree on that. The early digital synths sounded like horror. It took to the late 90's before they got the digital technology sounding right, in my opinion. A bit of topic, but what annoys me a lot nowadays, is the use of electric piano/Fender Rhodes, that is so overused in chillout electronica and nu-jazz. ------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 06:16
|
The guitar is dated, lets ban it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 06:18
I love Rhodes Piano, but it does seem that anyone ever plays one is automatically labeled as "jazzy", it doesn't matter what they're playing. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 06:21
i think they tried this in the 80's. i'm not sure it worked out so well -------------
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 06:27
|
Who is they? Guitar was present in most mainstream 80s music that I can think of, sure a lot of music gave synths a more dominant role but the guitar was there.
It wasn't until the invention of electronica and hip hop that popular musicians (outside of jazz) seemed to ditch guitars entirely. And the latter still uses guitar samples often.
Just about everything you can do with a guitar (without effects) has been done, I just find it stupid that people call synths dated when they have so much more f*cking potential than a 6 stringed piece of wood. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 10:13
|
I would add one often negelected musician to the list of important controbutionist in the development of both analog, semi-analog, aucustic, semi electric, electric and digital klaviatur instrument
like one of the best showcases of ARP-synths
here every instrument is Elton, grand piano, mellotrons, farfisa
grand classic piano
Elton dose some Harpishchord
both Fender Rhodes and flute Mellotron
-------------  
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 10:24
sarcastic 80's hate obviously doesn't shine through in text form -------------
|
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 11:44
Yes. Don't get me wrong i like Rhodes very much myself, but there is always the risk of inflation if you overuse it. And yes, you got a point about the jazzy thing :) ------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 17 2011 at 16:02
|
Fender Rhodes piano back in the '70's was a wonder! I liked how Chick Corea used it in early RTF, check out their LP "Where Have I Known You Before?" for a taste of some excellent Rhodes. It also made a damn nice bass, as evidenced by The Doors and others. I think John Paul Jones uses Fender Rhodes for some of the bass in the beginning of "Stairway to Heaven." Rhodes achieved a sound very much like the orchestra "celeste" instrument. Very bell-like tone. I don't know what modern-day musicians are doing with them, as I don't listen to much modern music it seems! One of my favorite "dated" analog synths was the amazing Prophet 5. That mother sounded HUGE! Basically like a 5-note polyphonic mini-Moog. I'm not sure what you kids are calling "dated" sounds (I'm 55). Can you be more specific? For example, Keith Emerson's MiniMoog solo on Lucky Man was a classic Moog setting with square-wave waveform, using a bit of portamento. What's wrong with that? The more "dated" something sounds, the more I like it! Heavy wah-wah pedal.....check out the guitar in "The King Will Come" by Wishbone Ash!! |
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 18 2011 at 04:27
The Gabriel years are certainly very "70s" compared to Trick through Three.
Tony's synth work is great stuff and if you don't have his Soundtracks album with music from Quicksilver/Lorca, you should track down a copy. ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 18 2011 at 13:23
Nahhh ... the guitar is the new violin for the next 250 years!
And it's just getting started properly! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 20 2011 at 02:27
|
It seems rather ironic that the question is raised at all. Given that the biggest selling soft synths bought by an entire generation of computer musicians are that of replications of the Minimoog, ARP soloist, Mellotron, Fender Rhodes, Hammond Organ etc it seems self evident that young musicians want dated!!???
------------- 
|
Posted By: pammiwhammi
Date Posted: February 20 2011 at 12:43
|
I think the Fender Rhodes sound is really dated-sounding. I like 80s synth sounds though.
------------- "I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress..." |