Diva Vs. Real Analog

[samsam]

I started being aware of music in the 70s and remember loving The Sweet, Marc Bolan, ELO, Queen, Blondie, Elvis Costello....

Didn't listen to any prog, thought it was shite.

[wagtunes]

I started being aware of music in the 70s and remember loving The Sweet, Marc Bolan, ELO, Queen, Blondie, Elvis Costello....

Didn't listen to any prog, thought it was shite.

A lot of people felt this way, which is why, again, it was not mainstream. And after a while, even some of the prog rock fans abandoned it because it had become stale and a parody of itself.

[samsam]

I started being aware of music in the 70s and remember loving The Sweet, Marc Bolan, ELO, Queen, Blondie, Elvis Costello....

Didn't listen to any prog, thought it was shite.

A lot of people felt this way, which is why, again, it was not mainstream. And after a while, even some of the prog rock fans abandoned it because it had become stale and a parody of itself.

TBH I was young in the 70s (all of the above is pop, no?) so I didn't even really know about prog. But it never attracted me retrospectively unlike punk, which I was a bit too young for at the time but realised the value of later.

[wagtunes]

I started being aware of music in the 70s and remember loving The Sweet, Marc Bolan, ELO, Queen, Blondie, Elvis Costello....

Didn't listen to any prog, thought it was shite.

A lot of people felt this way, which is why, again, it was not mainstream. And after a while, even some of the prog rock fans abandoned it because it had become stale and a parody of itself.

TBH I was young in the 70s (all of the above is pop, no?) so I didn't even really know about prog. But it never attracted me retrospectively unlike punk, which I was a bit too young for at the time but realised the value of later.

Punk Rock, in the US, hit around 77-78. I know it hit earlier overseas but it took a while to catch on here. Punk was also never mainstream here as it was more or less anti popular. That was pretty much the point of punk. It was like a rebellion.

Personally, I liked some punk, didn't like other punk. I could take it or leave it.

[fluffy_little_something]

......
Sometimes people seem to forget that real analog synths actually have a different basic sound (which is one reason why there were so many of them...), even if they share a similar architecture. Opposing to many other real analog monosynths (especially vintage ones) the Pulse 2 has a multimode filter (12dB/24dB LPF, 12dB BPF, 12dB HPF) where all modes are resonant until self-oscillation.

Exactly this. Even implementing the same filter IC but using different configurations lead to a different sound.

Maybe they could do that with software as well They could use slightly different values for certain filter and osc parameters, hardwired within the code of each and every license so that every license has a unique, slightly different sound

[Apostate]

I wouldn't substitute Diva for Moog emulations like the Monark, or the Arturia Mini V (okay, let's hear the de rigueur booing for the latter, sorry folks I love that synth). No way. I do think the Jupiter stuff can be astoundingly great, especially Ingo's presets, the latter of which I use consistently.

As far as the Moog sound goes, I mostly liked it on Rainbow Rising and the Return to Forever material. I was a child of the 70s and never cared much for the Prog besides classic King Crimson. I was more in to heavy rock/classic Metal, and the Moog could sound pretty killer in that genre imo, just check out the expressive playing on the aforementioned Rising. It made that album sound more like a place you'd visit than a song or album you'd listen to. At least to my ears.

[ImNotDedYet]

That's totally contrary to what wagtunes said. He said that his Minimoog sounded like crap when played dry.

His view certainly isn't the common opinion. Maybe he just has a dud of a Minimoog.

It's more the era I grew up in than the synths themselves, which is maybe why I might not be the most objective person when it comes to synths in general, hardware or software.

When I got into synthesis, what I was really looking for at the time was a synth that could do strings. I always loved pop tunes with nice strings. I could never tell which ones were real and which ones were synths because of how processed they all were.

It was by accident that I stumbled onto mono and duophonic synths. There was no polyphonic that I was aware of back in the 70s. At least nothing that was affordable for a poor church mouse like me. I was still living at home making minimum wage ($3 an hour) at my Uncle's store.

So I bought what I could afford just to have something. As I started making more money, still living at home with no expenses, I bought more synths. Moogs, ARPs, Yamahas, you name it. Truth is, I never really loved any of them. To this day I don't get the fascination with old vintage synths. But again, I grew up with this stuff.

To compound matters, I was sick and tired of all the Moog "Lucky Man" solos. It's all you heard. Prog rock was getting stale and eventually died out. It was inevitable. Even ELP came out with a dog of an album that I still can't believe was done by them.

I was simply sick of the whole scene. The only two old synths that, for whatever reason, I still loved the sounds of were the ARP 2600 and the Oberheim. Any Oberheim. I owned the Matrix 6R and the Matrix 1000. I regret selling them both even today with all my soft synths. But the rest of it. Don't miss it.

It wasn't until the days of Korg and the M1 and Wavestation that I really "enjoyed" the sounds that came out of a synth. They sounded, to a degree, like real instruments. The DX7 was on the way out (thank God as I always hated that thing even though I bought one) and synths were growing up. You could actually play something that sounded relatively close to a real orchestra, which was the reason I got into synths in the first place.

Today, with libraries like Vienna, EWQL, 8Dio and others, the sound a real orchestra isn't a dream anymore. It's scary how good some of this stuff sounds.

Truth is, I hated the era I grew up in as far as keyboard instruments went. The sound, the weight of the damn things (Rhodes, Yamaha) and the repairs were just too much. And ironically, I never could stop buying this stuff because I was always looking for that elusive gem. And yes, I was taken in by great demos and guys who could play the crap out of their instrument. But as a mediocre pianist, I could never get anything good out of my instrument. So I'll take the blame for that.

Today, with DAWs and the ability to literally paint your songs, I can actually sound decent. Certainly a hell of a lot better than I ever sounded in the 70s and 80s.

So there is a lot of bitterness and resentment there in regard to these relics because they didn't make me sound like ELP, Genesis, Yes, Kansas, Renaissance, ELO, Triumvirat, Starcastle and all my other favorite prog rock bands. Because yes, in their hands, some of this stuff sounded cool. But even Keith Emerson said he was embarrassed by the "Lucky Man" solo. Personally, I think it was the poisonous snake that eventually killed prog rock. Everybody wanted to sound like that and eventually it was all over the radio.

Point is, I think I hate the era and my own ineptness as a performer that I hated more than the synths themselves.

There are a few hardware synths that, money allowed, I'd love to own. But trust me, a Moog is not one of them.

I've heard enough of that sound to last me a lifetime.

After reading a number of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you were probably a horrible synth programmer when you had those classic synths you say sound so bad. I've heard you say on many occasions, this soft synth comes close enough to what I remember from that hardware synth when I owned it in the 80's. Yet, when you went down to get one of your Moogs from back in the day, you realized you didn't even have any of your hardware synths. When was the last time you played those hardware synths you claim to know so well? My guess is, you could probably make some pretty damn amazing sounds on those hardware synths today if you still had them - provided your synth programming skills are actually good enough to sell preset libraries.

And your argument is just plain stupid. You were pissed at the hardware synths because they didn't give you convincing string sounds that you were looking for or make you sound like Pink Floyd, yet you have probably 150 soft synths that you're very proud to list each week. You hate the sound of the DX7, but have a number of FM soft synths and even really like the FM capabilities of some of the soft synths. You hate the Moog sound, but have Moog emulation VAs. And just for the record...most of the soft synths you now own and love can't do a convincing string or make you sound like some of the better 70's prog rock bands.

And @aciddose comparing the Beatles to Skrillex? WTF has this thread and people's minds come to? There were people that lived in caves in Afghanistan and hadn't been out of those caves in twenty years that heard of the Beatles. Skrillex is and has been detested by a lot of people in "neighboring" dance music genres. Skrillex is today's Beatle's? The Beatle's were actually pretty talented musicians, and they did a lot of musical exploration and tried a lot of odd, new concepts in the music studio. Skrillex really doesn't do anything musically different than many other dance music producers.

[chk071]

Just demo'd Monark a bit. I really like the blips and beeps you can get out if, and the oscillators sound very strong. But the filter distortion is pretty meh for me. I never played a real Minimoog, but from videos, i didn't feel like they usually distort so much in the filter. I don't know if NI had a model which particularly distorted, but it's not very pleasant to me. A shame, because the overall character of the filter in Monark is great. Gotta try Diva, and check if there's that much filter distortion in the Moog filter too. Don't really remember it.

Edit: Interesting that Diva and Monark sound so different. Diva doesn't have so much filter distortion, the point of self oscillation, or resonance peak seems to be higher on Diva than on Monark, the oscillators sound differently (Diva sounds quite a lot more "metallic"), and Monark has a lot more bass than Diva. Don't want to open up the "which one is closer to the real thing" case, i wouldn't be able to judge that anyway without owning or having played the real thing, but Diva sounds a bit more softsynthie to me while Monark is pretty brutal.

[Tonberry]

Punk Rock, in the US, hit around 77-78. I know it hit earlier overseas but it took a while to catch on here. Punk was also never mainstream here as it was more or less anti popular. That was pretty much the point of punk. It was like a rebellion.

It sort of became popular in the 90s when grunge and bands like Nirvana and Soundgarden became mainstream. Those were heavily influenced by punk rock on all fronts.

The irony of it was that for some time being against the grain became grain

[Apostate]

And @aciddose comparing the Beatles to Skrillex? WTF has this thread and people's minds come to? There were people that lived in caves in Afghanistan and hadn't been out of those caves in twenty years that heard of the Beatles. Skrillex is and has been detested by a lot of people in "neighboring" dance music genres. Skrillex is today's Beatle's? The Beatle's were actually pretty talented musicians, and they did a lot of musical exploration and tried a lot of odd, new concepts in the music studio. Skrillex really doesn't do anything musically different than many other dance music producers.

To be fair, I think he might have meant in terms of current popularity and relatively recent emergence. Most musicologists concur that very little in Popular music has progressed (from a strictly musical level) since the Beatles and Pet Sounds. Even Pink Floyd, King Crimson, all the "progressive" bands borrowed (whether directly or indirectly) from the aforementioned acts, and no one has been anywhere near as groundbreaking since.

At least that's the majority opinion of musicologists, I personally don't know nuthin'.

[fmr]

OMD, Human League, Cabaret Voltaire... in the 70s...? You definitely must tale a look at the names, and consult the Wikipedia.

No, you should.

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (OMD) are an English new wave/synthpop group formed in 1978

And the usual suspect strikes again, with the usual sophismas. Lets keep with Wikipedia, then:

(OMD) eponymous first album (1980) showcased the band's live set at the time, and was basically recorded by the Humphreys/McCluskey duo, although included some guest drums from Id drummer Malcolm Holmes, and saxophone from Wirral musician Martin Cooper.

The Human League are an English electronic new wave band formed in Sheffield in 1977. Dare (1981), the band's most popular album, yielded the single "Don't You Want Me", a No. 1 hit in the pop charts of UK, US and many other countries.

Cabaret Voltaire are an English music group formed in Sheffield in 1973... The 27 June 1978 edition of NME had a review by Andy Gill who said "I firmly believe Cabaret Voltaire will turn out to be one of the most important new bands to achieve wider recognition this year. Wait and see." [9] And, certainly, years later they were seen as one of the bands that instigated the electronic music scene.

And even TD and Kraftwerk... TD started as a derivative of Krautrock

Ahem.

Tangerine Dream was a German electronic music group founded in 1967 by Edgar Froese.

The fact the Krautrock adjective appeared later doesn't change nothing to the statement - consult Amon Duul, Popol Vuh, Can, etc. Besides, following your (sophismatic) logic, Genesis and King Crimson are bands from the sixties (actually, prog rock started effectively on the second half of the 60s, and went through to the end of the 70s). And I will leave you dancing alone for the rest of the ball.

[wagtunes]

After reading a number of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you were probably a horrible synth programmer when you had those classic synths you say sound so bad. I've heard you say on many occasions, this soft synth comes close enough to what I remember from that hardware synth when I owned it in the 80's. Yet, when you went down to get one of your Moogs from back in the day, you realized you didn't even have any of your hardware synths. When was the last time you played those hardware synths you claim to know so well? My guess is, you could probably make some pretty damn amazing sounds on those hardware synths today if you still had them - provided your synth programming skills are actually good enough to sell preset libraries.

And your argument is just plain stupid. You were pissed at the hardware synths because they didn't give you convincing string sounds that you were looking for or make you sound like Pink Floyd, yet you have probably 150 soft synths that you're very proud to list each week. You hate the sound of the DX7, but have a number of FM soft synths and even really like the FM capabilities of some of the soft synths. You hate the Moog sound, but have Moog emulation VAs. And just for the record...most of the soft synths you now own and love can't do a convincing string or make you sound like some of the better 70's prog rock bands.

Of course I was a crappy synth programmer back then. Who wasn't outside of the pros? It's not like we had the Internet, tutorials or even decent manuals. You brought your instrument home and turned dials. Unless you were around back then you can't possibly understand what it was like.

Yes, I was pissed at the sounds they made. It's not like I had the 20-20 hindsight that I have today to know that these were really very limited instruments. I heard all these sounds on the radio and figured they all came from the same thing. Just turn a different dial and get a different sound.

Yes, if I knew then what I know now, I would probably have never purchased even a one of those overpriced monsters. I would have waited until digital workstations and started my musical journey then. But I didn't have 20-20 hindsight and I sure as hell couldn't predict the future. I know what I wanted out of an instrument but I never in a million years thought I'd ever see it. Even today, you can't get everything out of one box. No synth is ever going to make truly realistic orchestral sounds. For those you need to turn to libraries like Vienna and EWQL.

As to why I have all the VSTs I have. Most are free. I downloaded them out of curiosity. The ones I bought were mostly for business reasons. I may not love a lot of the old sounds but I'm also not stupid. I recognize what's popular today and realize that I need to incorporate those sounds into my music and sound libraries.

If that sounds mercenary to you, oh well, whatever. One has to eat.

For pure musical pleasure and nothing else, I prefer orchestral libraries and synths that make the more unusual sounds like wavetable synths and modular synths. I love synths like Cycle but the damn thing is so unstable I can barely use it. I'm really looking forward to Flexion and even signed up for the beta testing team because I think that synth has real possibilities.

But old synths?

There is only so much you can do with saw/square/pulse/triangle.

So if you want to crucify me for being young, naive and stupid, fine.

I've been called a lot worse.

[fluffy_little_something]

The Beatles were widely known back then, both with people who loved and hated them. But Skrillex?! I don't know who that is, and probably nobody I know knows him or her or them or whatever

[2ZrgE]

Skrillex really doesn't do anything musically different than many other dance music producers.

I don't like his productions that much but I can admit that he's really good at what he does, at least better than the most other EDM artists I know of.

To compare him to the Beatles at least you have to wait till his career is over...

[Tonberry]

And @aciddose comparing the Beatles to Skrillex? WTF has this thread and people's minds come to? There were people that lived in caves in Afghanistan and hadn't been out of those caves in twenty years that heard of the Beatles. Skrillex is and has been detested by a lot of people in "neighboring" dance music genres. Skrillex is today's Beatle's? The Beatle's were actually pretty talented musicians, and they did a lot of musical exploration and tried a lot of odd, new concepts in the music studio. Skrillex really doesn't do anything musically different than many other dance music producers.

Skrillex is never going to come close to the Beatles and no other artist ever will. There was so much more to explore in popular music when the Beatles were young than it is now, the sheer number of paths and experiments they pioneered will never be possible to match again because too much has been mastered since their times.

One thing about music and history is that even though talentless hacks occupied, occupy and will occupy airwaves and concert halls on a daily basis, the ones that become legendary and remembered by future generations are the ones that innovated or absolutely mastered some musical aspect. And nobody innovated half as much as the Beatles did when they dropped their silly teenage rock and roll, started taking psychedelic drugs and experiment with every wild idea that came to their minds.

On the other hand, Skrillex is very talented, skilled in music production and there's no doubt that he's innovative as well. See what popular club music has looked like for the last 20 years - trance, then house, now trance/house in various proportions. Absolutely zero innovation except for new trends in sound design - and this almost exclusive to the house side of the scene, trance is stubbornly resistant to change.

Skrillex single-handedly created a new major genre of electronic music which for few years dominated everything from dancefloors to TV commercials. There is no other modern artist you can say that about. People discredit him often based on the fact that it's danceable music and lots of unpleasant sounds - and those kinds of artists got us used to the fact that they can't be treated as anything more than light form of entertainment and good fun. He's much more than that, though.

Personally, I very much enjoy both artists but there's no serious comparison of cult status that involves the Beatles. 600 million albums sold speak for themselves more than whatever Youtube shows.