Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 NewWhat is KVR? Submit News Advertise

The most underestimated synths...

User avatar
fluffy_little_something
KVRAF
 
9119 posts since 5 Jun, 2012, from Portugal

Postby fluffy_little_something; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:10 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

chaosWyrM wrote: ok...im not trying to argue with you about it. i think you simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "underrated"....as per your logic...nothing can be underrated, since everything gets the rating it deserves.

seeing as how we have a 20 page thread of synths people feel are in fact underrated...i think most people here may disagree with your assessment of what underrated means.


Exactly, people - usually the few that are impressed by a supposedly underrated synth - FEEL that their synth is underrated, assuming others just don't know it and hence don't agree with them.
But I think that is not the case with software synths, which are discussed by a very global, connected community. In today's world it is indeed hard to find something that is truly underrated or overrated. I mean, who does the "official" rating? Probably the vast majority of people...

It's like with movies. Some people love a certain movie and can't understand why most other people don't love it. Or the other way round.
chk071
KVRAF
 
12430 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:15 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

Agreed. Seems like "underestimated" is mostly kind of an excuse for "not popular for a reason". ;)
It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment".
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
7778 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:23 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

Which is why I think this discussion is futile at best. I can take any synth that 99% of the people in this forum think it utter trash (if finding 99% of the people here to agree on anything is even possible) and make great music with it.

Point is, ANY synth can be argued to be underestimated if it doesn't sell well or isn't viewed as "great" by the community or whatever the freaking criteria is for this pointless exercise.

Go on. Name a synth that you think is utter trash, as long as it's 64 bit because I can't run 32 bit plugs. Get 99% of the users here to agree it's utter trash. I'll go buy it and make some damn cool music with it JUST to prove my point.

99% too much to ask for? Fine. Name your acceptable percentage. But it at least has to be greater than 50% otherwise what's the point?

I swear, I will do this. I don't even freaking care how much the synth costs. I'll buy it.

Who wants to take me up on this challenge?
AnX
KVRAF
 
1645 posts since 17 Nov, 2015

Postby AnX; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:35 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

Does everyone have to agree the track you made is damn cool?
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
7778 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:50 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

AnX wrote:Does everyone have to agree the track you made is damn cool?


Just a decent percentage. If we make a poll and 200 people vote and only 10 people think it's any good then I think it's safe to say the track sucked. And since 99% of the people (or whatever percentage you agree on is sufficient) agreed the synth itself sucked, we can't blame me for the disaster.

So come on. Let's do it.
User avatar
chaosWyrM
KVRian
 
1499 posts since 28 Apr, 2010, from NYC

Postby chaosWyrM; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:56 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

fluffy_little_something wrote:
It's like with movies. Some people love a certain movie and can't understand why most other people don't love it. Or the other way round.


still misunderstanding the term "underrated".

its not about people loving it or not...its about perceived quality.

but lets investigate your movie analogy.

people all over the world LOVE frozen. i mean its immensely popular...kids love it, adults love it...its got insane amounts of merchandising attached to it...it makes millions upon millions in royalties and other monies every year.

that doesnt mean its any good. in fact its a pretty terrible movie, with horrible voice acting/singing a not very nice but very immature simple plot, and mediocre at best animation.

now lets take an entirely different movie...how about harold and maude...that film is a wonderful movie, with great writing, superb acting, and a funny and interesting plot. now according to your logic....frozen is a better film because it appeals to more people and is far far more popular. but the reality is that harold and maude is the VASTLY superior film...in all the qualities that actually make up what a film is.

the perceived quality of harold and maude (not just in comparison to frozen mind you) is much lower than its actual quality. its a very VERY good film that most people wont even watch because they THINK its not very good...its underrated.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
fluffy_little_something
KVRAF
 
9119 posts since 5 Jun, 2012, from Portugal

Postby fluffy_little_something; Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:58 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

I think a synth, just like any technical object, is much easier to rate in an objective way than music, which is by nature a very subjective area. I think an artist is already fortunate if 10% of people don't think his music sucks :hihi:
.jon
KVRAF
 
5188 posts since 8 Jul, 2002, from Helsinki

Postby .jon; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:03 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

fluffy_little_something wrote:Conversely, popular synths tend to be popular for good reasons.


This is usually not the case with anything popular- they are most often popular simply because they somehow got popular. "Somehow" can be marketing, or just hurr-durr masses parroting others without really having a clue about anything.
Thanks KVR 2002-2017. Remember the music.
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
7778 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:05 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

chaosWyrM wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:
It's like with movies. Some people love a certain movie and can't understand why most other people don't love it. Or the other way round.


still misunderstanding the term "underrated".

its not about people loving it or not...its about perceived quality.

but lets investigate your movie analogy.

people all over the world LOVE frozen. i mean its immensely popular...kids love it, adults love it...its got insane amounts of merchandising attached to it...it makes millions upon millions in royalties and other monies every year.

that doesnt mean its any good. in fact its a pretty terrible movie, with horrible voice acting/singing a not very nice but very immature simple plot, and mediocre at best animation.

now lets take an entirely different movie...how about harold and maude...that film is a wonderful movie, with great writing, superb acting, and a funny and interesting plot. now according to your logic....frozen is a better film because it appeals to more people and is far far more popular. but the reality is that harold and maude is the VASTLY superior film...in all the qualities that actually make up what a film is.

the perceived quality of harold and maude (not just in comparison to frozen mind you) is much lower than its actual quality. its a very VERY good film that most people wont even watch because they THINK its not very good...its underrated.


The problem with your entire post, and this WHOLE thread for that matter is simple...

IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION.

Who says Harold and Maude is a superior movie? Did somebody die and leave you as movie critique god?

You like Harold and Maude. Fine. Doesn't mean it's a great movie. Doesn't mean it's not a great movie.

People who try to apply subjective opinion to objective fact drive me totally bonkers.

Objective Fact: Donald Trump is the current President of the US.

Subjective Opinion: Harold and Maude is a great movie.

If you can't see the difference between fact and opinion then I have no hope for this thread ever having any meaning whatsoever.

Of course, it doesn't.

And the irony is, that's JUST my opinion.

Now do you understand?
User avatar
fluffy_little_something
KVRAF
 
9119 posts since 5 Jun, 2012, from Portugal

Postby fluffy_little_something; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:05 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

chaosWyrM wrote:still misunderstanding the term "underrated".

its not about people loving it or not...its about perceived quality.

but lets investigate your movie analogy.

people all over the world LOVE frozen. i mean its immensely popular...kids love it, adults love it...its got insane amounts of merchandising attached to it...it makes millions upon millions in royalties and other monies every year.

that doesnt mean its any good. in fact its a pretty terrible movie, with horrible voice acting/singing a not very nice but very immature simple plot, and mediocre at best animation.

now lets take an entirely different movie...how about harold and maude...that film is a wonderful movie, with great writing, superb acting, and a funny and interesting plot. now according to your logic....frozen is a better film because it appeals to more people and is far far more popular. but the reality is that harold and maude is the VASTLY superior film...in all the qualities that actually make up what a film is.

the perceived quality of harold and maude (not just in comparison to frozen mind you) is much lower than its actual quality. its a very VERY good film that most people wont even watch because they THINK its not very good...its underrated.


Who says quality is the only criterion when rating something? Popularity is just as valid a criterion.

Some synths such as Diversion sound very good, the quality is definitely there. But many people don't like it's user interface, others have a CPU problem, others think it sounds great, but too digital (whatever that means)...

Regarding movies, what's the point of making a movie that doesn't appeal to many people? Sure, film critics might rip the Minions apart, but I love them, along with hundreds of millions of other people.
The question is, what is the purpose of a movie. Is it to entertain, to make people laugh, to make them think about life and death and be sad?
Last edited by fluffy_little_something on Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
sfd
KVRian
 
943 posts since 14 Jul, 2013

Postby sfd; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:06 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

Sound is of interest. Yes.

But I think melody is way more imporant.

A melody by Mozart. What instrument? It doesn't matter.

Everybody knows that popcorn melody. Not so many really know or even care about the sound.

It's not because of the Minimoogs people know and remember Kraftwerk's "The Model". It's the melody. You can play it with a classical orchestra or with a roc klband. It's still that good song.

Sound can support your song. But it won't make the music for you.

Compsing should not be based on sound but on good melodies.

What I'm saying is that the latest super ultra fantstic synth won't make any music for you. We are, again, lead into the idea that with this or that new synth we'll revolutionise the sound and thereby make greater music. This is just as untrue today as it was in the early 80s.

Look at KVR. Everybody is talkign techknology. Nobody is talking music.

Everybody have a hundred plug-ins and sound libraries with zillion rimshots. What are you going to do with a zillion rimshots?

I'm not saying that there's no importance to sound. But it's really less imkporant then melody. A great souding guitar is of zero interest until you play somethign beautiful on it.
You can listen to my music HERE.
lnikj
KVRian
 
1279 posts since 23 May, 2005

Postby lnikj; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:07 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

wagtunes wrote:
AnX wrote:Does everyone have to agree the track you made is damn cool?


Just a decent percentage. If we make a poll and 200 people vote and only 10 people think it's any good then I think it's safe to say the track sucked. And since 99% of the people (or whatever percentage you agree on is sufficient) agreed the synth itself sucked, we can't blame me for the disaster.

So come on. Let's do it.


Nothing is ever going to get a 99% 'no' vote but along the way some people are going to feel very hurt - the devs of the synths that make your shortlist.

I've got no objection to the criticism of devs who offer appalling customer service, but slagging off their creations per se is bit shabby IMHO.
User avatar
zerocrossing
KVRAF
 
8913 posts since 26 Jun, 2006, from San Francisco Bay Area

Postby zerocrossing; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:17 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

chaosWyrM wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:
It's like with movies. Some people love a certain movie and can't understand why most other people don't love it. Or the other way round.


still misunderstanding the term "underrated".

its not about people loving it or not...its about perceived quality.

but lets investigate your movie analogy.

people all over the world LOVE frozen. i mean its immensely popular...kids love it, adults love it...its got insane amounts of merchandising attached to it...it makes millions upon millions in royalties and other monies every year.

that doesnt mean its any good. in fact its a pretty terrible movie, with horrible voice acting/singing a not very nice but very immature simple plot, and mediocre at best animation.

now lets take an entirely different movie...how about harold and maude...that film is a wonderful movie, with great writing, superb acting, and a funny and interesting plot. now according to your logic....frozen is a better film because it appeals to more people and is far far more popular. but the reality is that harold and maude is the VASTLY superior film...in all the qualities that actually make up what a film is.

the perceived quality of harold and maude (not just in comparison to frozen mind you) is much lower than its actual quality. its a very VERY good film that most people wont even watch because they THINK its not very good...its underrated.


This analogy is horrible. First off, in Frozen, a little girl tells a painting of Joan of Arc to "hang in there!" That alone gives it huge points in my opinion. WTF? :lol: But seriously, you're actually comparing a movie crafted for little kids with Harold and Maude? Why not Apocalypse Now? Try showing either of those to a 4 year old. The first will put them to sleep or cause them to wander off, the second will traumatize them for life. Why not compare my 4 year old's cat keyboard to my Prophet 6? To my daughter, the cat keyboard is a way better product in every way. The keys are spaced perfectly for her tiny hands, there are cute sounds and beats she can play to. She likes messing around in my studio too, but the thing she goes for almost every time is the Tenori-On. A synth/sequencer designed by a game designer. To her, it's the best thing in my studio.

Frozen actually is a great looking film. I don't get the criticism of the animation. The plot, while simple, nicely deviates from the "princess waiting for the prince to complete her" formula. The day isn't saved by a guy. I don't really like most musical music, but I have to admit that the score and songs in that film are pretty damn good, for the most part. We listen to the score on the way home from daycare and it's an excellent way to get a child into classical music.

Now, Harold and Maude, sure it explores some complicated and nuanced subjects in the life of two adults, but it's purpose is profoundly different, as is it's intended audience. But it never made me orgasm, as other films have, so that means it's worse than porn right? Porn must be the best movie making ever because of the intenses response it creates in the viewer. How's that for logic?
Zerocrossing Media

4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
sjm
KVRian
 
911 posts since 17 Apr, 2004

Postby sjm; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:18 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

BlackWinny wrote:
Krakatau wrote:just in case "Gaga" means senile in frensh

:P

Off-Topic begin
"Senile" no, never for "gaga"... in fact it is even the contrary. "Gaga" is a term to qualify "someone who behaves as if he had staid mentally baby or very, very young child... or staid for life with the IQ of a lettuce".

Some persons (not always old) behave also momentarily that way when they have a baby on their knees... and yet, yes, it is also an occasion to say "She is "gaga" in front of her grandson or her granddaughter" like producing stupid noises with the fingers making guitar tremolos on the lips.
:clown:

I don't know if there is a true equivalent in English slang. Being found of slang for my lectures of old "polars" (old caper stories and that kind of crazy black novels) I would like to know if someone has an answer...


The English term for "gaga" is "gaga", and it means, silly, crazy, senile etc. too.

My mum sometimes uses the phrase, for example she wants me to know about the family finances so I can take care of them "when she's old and gaga".

I don't know the nuances of the meaning of "gaga" in French, so they might be slightly different. But according to both the link I posted and etymonline.com, the English term is French in origin, and the original French meaning is "senile" and "foolish".
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
7778 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:19 am Re: The most underestimated synths...

sfd wrote:Sound is of interest. Yes.

But I think melody is way more imporant.

A melody by Mozart. What instrument? It doesn't matter.

Everybody knows that popcorn melody. Not so many really know or even care about the sound.

It's not because of the Minimoogs people know and remember Kraftwerk's "The Model". It's the melody. You can play it with a classical orchestra or with a roc klband. It's still that good song.

Sound can support your song. But it won't make the music for you.

Compsing should not be based on sound but on good melodies.

What I'm saying is that the latest super ultra fantstic synth won't make any music for you. We are, again, lead into the idea that with this or that new synth we'll revolutionise the sound and thereby make greater music. This is just as untrue today as it was in the early 80s.

Look at KVR. Everybody is talkign techknology. Nobody is talking music.

Everybody have a hundred plug-ins and sound libraries with zillion rimshots. What are you going to do with a zillion rimshots?

I'm not saying that there's no importance to sound. But it's really less imkporant then melody. A great souding guitar is of zero interest until you play somethign beautiful on it.


I agree with you to a point.

But you can't take a kazoo and play Beethoven's 9th with it and expect it to have the same impact on people as playing it using a full orchestra.

Yes, of course it starts with the melody and harmony. But it doesn't end there. And as important as those things are, you can ruin them with poor instrument arrangement, vocals, recording and any number of things.

If you think I'm kidding, I can make a cover of a song considered one of the greatest of all times and totally butcher it to the point where you can't listen to it.

What? You've never heard a singer so bad that you couldn't listen to the song anymore, even though it was an established "standard?"

Back in the day when I was so bad at doing this stuff, one agent was totally honest with me. He said, and I'll never forget these words"

"Steve, I honestly can't tell if your songs are any good or not because your performance and recordings are just terrible. And no publisher is going to be able to listen to these and tell if there is anything commercial in them."

Granted, it's just one man's opinion. But it sure supports all the rejection letters that I got from all the publishers I submitted to.

And then I started to improve with my playing and recording and I got my first song contract. And it was on a song that was generally believed to be a "hard sell" because it wasn't the kind of stuff that was popular at the time. But the production and everything about the song made it so that the publisher just couldn't pass on it.

Now of course this was all in the early 90s when you actually could rely on publishers to take your work. Today, everything is do it yourself because of the Internet so it doesn't matter how good my stuff is or isn't. I'm on my own. But the same rules still apply. I can't take a great dance track and play it on a kazoo. I'll be laughed off the Internet.

A great song will only get you so far without the proper presentation. Hell, I've had people tell me they can't listen to my music simply because I use Vocaloid. They can't get past that synthetic oriental sound. So how can you say it's just the song that matters?

Everything matters. And in today's day and age, maybe more so than back in the 60s when you had Tin Pan Alley and could play your song on an out of tune piano and still get a deal. Today, the production has to be near radio quality to begin with before a label will even bother talking to you.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments