Does the average listener really care if its analog?

[BBFG#]

Well, when all is said and done, the only real difference between which spelling is used is in how much of an issue a person demands to make it. I would hate to think that all Euros were that petty. (Which I know they're not).

That's interesting because the only person I saw here making a proclamation about which should be used where, was yourself.

Then you should read the comments of the other two before mine.

[whyterabbyt]

Well, when all is said and done, the only real difference between which spelling is used is in how much of an issue a person demands to make it. I would hate to think that all Euros were that petty. (Which I know they're not).

That's interesting because the only person I saw here making a proclamation about which should be used where, was yourself.

Then you should read the comments of the other two before mine.

I did.

[Gonga]

We can't define the "average listener" anyway, but it doesn't matter. Pretty much any listener doesn't care. The people who care are musicians...and probably a small minority of them.

One thing that I care about is whether or not a performance is live. When I hear George Duke's minimoog solo (I think!) on the superb Sausalito (from "Duke") I am quite sure he played the whole thing in one take and on an older Mini with no midi capability. That adds to my enjoyment of the piece because I'm a synth player / snob. Knowing the guy could play like that in his sleep adds to the excitement of listening for me, because I know he's figuratively flying. That doesn't happen when you program something into a machine. So a totally analog device often denotes the possibility of real playing.

[IncarnateX]

Does the average listener really care if its analog?

The average listener would be a 13 year old bubble gum chewing tweeny listening to degraded audio on her extremely cheap in-ears while checking facebook for updates.

What do YOU think?

[D.Josef]

I think equipment snobbery is something indigenous to all pursuits of life.
I personally found that the level of equipment snobbery exhibited is often in inverse proportion to the actual prowess and productivity of people.

Like, in photography, wankers who couldn't compose a good looking picture if their life depended on it, go on and on about megapixels and distortion and CCD vs MOSFET and sensor size and whatnot. Real professionals, on the other hand, grab a camera that is good enough and make pictures.

On Synthtopia, I read a comment stating that if the great synth legends of the 70s used digital synths, their albums would have been "shit" (well, maybe the exact wording was "crap", I don't remember). I beg to differ.

I do think though, that the commenter who perpetrated that couldn't produce anything that's not "shit" or "crap" if he had a zillion dollars worth of analogue synths, and a full-size original Telharmonium to boot.

Technology is just technology. I do understand the emotional significance of getting that specific sound, and the emotional attachment to the hardware. But music is not in the equipment. It's in the musician.

[BBFG#]

Last year we got a chance to see Tim Weisberg at a small restaurant in town. Someone I use to listen to records of and copy as much as I could on flute. So we get there and watch others fill in to the seats, most competing to get those 'first rows' and closest tables. And as soon as he started playing we noticed the iPhones spring up in the air and these front rowers turn their heads and start talking to each other without paying any real attention to the band or being polite enough for the few of us that were. Occasionally standing long enough to click a 'selfie' with the band as a backdrop. And finding out that most had never heard of him until it was advertised by the restaurant. Fulfilling a need to associate and photo bomb without consideration to the musician, the music, or us 'snobs' that actually came to hear it.
I would venture to say that only musicians listen in the first place, but knowing how many musicians were there proved me wrong on that point too.
(They often remind me of that old joke we used to tell in the music stores.)
{You know how many guitarists it takes to screw in a light bulb? Thirteen. One to do it and twelve to stand around talking about how they could do it better.}

In my experience, that is the "average listener". With great emphasis on the average and a complete diversion of being a listener.

[vurt]

@ "taking a selfie with the band as a backdrop"
are you 14?

[kbaccki]

I once took a selfie with a townie at a packie in southie.

[vurt]

I once took a selfie with a townie at a packie in southie.

pervert!

[BBFG#]

@ "taking a selfie with the band as a backdrop"
are you 14?

No, I'm not.
But it appears that the emotional age of these 20-30 YO is around that.
Are you just a guitar player?

[james0tucson]

Serious question. Do you think all the people who listen to music composed with Access Viruses, Nord Leads, Waldorfs etc actually care ??

The people who care about your gear and techniques are the ones hoping to emulate your work, not the "average listener."

Some artists have nothing but contempt for anyone who would try to imitate them. Other artists go out of their way to document their tools and techniques. The average listener in some genres is too drunk to know whether the noise bouncing off his ears is actually music.

[vurt]

@ "taking a selfie with the band as a backdrop"
are you 14?

No, I'm not.
But it appears that the emotional age of these 20-30 YO is around that.
Are you just a guitar player?

no, im a guitar artiste!

[zerocrossing]

I think it can in a tangential way. I think that listeners, even casual ones, respond to an inspired performance, so if you're inspired by a great sounding analog, it'll show in your performance. Of course, if you're inspired by your Virus, or by a plug-in, then so be it... there is no formula. I remember a really crazy and great performance by some guys doing a duet with some prepared acoustic instruments and Absynth and it was breathtaking. It doesn't get much more digital than Absynth.

I'll also chime in that when I was shopping for my Moog Phatty, I was with my wife. (a music lover but non musician) As I was noodling around with the Moog, she pointed out the less expensive but more impressive looking Roland Gaia. I'd never tried one after having a brief go at an SH-201 that I thought was horrible, so I moved over to it and fiddled around a bit with it. Without prompting my wife said, "The Moog sounded better." Now, she had no idea the Roland was digital and even if she did, no bias against it being that. She's the type who'll listen to her songs from her iPad speaker when there's a nice home stereo system 10 ft away. She instantly had a preference though and I agreed with her.

Of course, this is in no way indicative of anything really. Maybe the Gaia just sucks. Maybe the presets I was calling up sucked. Maybe my tweaking of them sucked. I sure don't think that being digital is bad. Hell, I just picked up a Korg Kingkorg and I love it so far... dare I say more than my Prophet 08? I DARE! Will it replace my analogs? I'm not sure. Maybe a few of them at least. That's the hope. I think it's definitely a step up from even the best plug in VAs I have. I love an analog instrument but I'd happily jump ship for something that offers equally good sound with more flexibility and features.

[mztk]

All they care about is if it's danceable and if the lyrics sound good.

But lyrics in a lot of popular danceable music are ridiculous.

i misread that as 'Dancehall'

duh, er, what was the question? analog(ue) SIGNAL PATH or SYNTHESIZER?
i think, for synths, it is a misconception to think that analogues were
responsible for all the fattest funkiest basses (and much else)through the
history of synths.

[foosnark]

Just for kicks, I asked this question on my Facebook page.

50% of responses so far have been some variation on "what the hell are you talking about?"

50% have been "I can almost never tell the difference anyway, and when I can it's too subtle to care about."


I suspect this is like asking people in a movie theater whether they care about the kind of camera that was used to shoot the movie.