One Synth Challenge #128: OB-Xd from discoDSP (mmGhost wins!)

[L-EctroBit]

I have been reading all the different ideas of what OSC should be, and I have found a word that repeats a lot "spirit."
And I think that to know the spirit with which this challenge was created we must go to the "founding fathers".
I found this first comment of Tattiemannie (who is according to the OSC website the original founder), dated March 19, 2009, from which I believe we can extract the original spirit with which One Synth Challenge was created:

A broad approach I would recommend would be to disregard genre and to some extent, production quality. Its more about how the artist an the chosen synth have produced the range and quality of sounds necessary for the track.
so .... we dont go asking "why no brass?" in a folk tune, anymore than we ask "why no soft pad?" in a punk track....... The idea from the outset is to create a track using only one synth..... and the proof of the pudding is about how that challenge has been met, so it's not about the merits of the synth, nor the merits of the track, it's about how the artist has shown that the limitation of using only one synth, does not necesarily limit their ability to produce a quality track, in a style of their choosing.

So I suppose what we're looking for as a yardstick is the "wow! you did that whole track with one synth and hardly any effects????????" ...

viewtopic.php?p=3509098&sid=ce936877539 ... a#p3509098


I was listening to the first track that won the OSC-1, "Army of Synth1" made by Kaiyoti (who took 54 percent of all votes) and according to the comments of the contestants at that time, it seems that the "WOW" factor prevailed on that occasion.
From then on there were many modifications of the rules, but the true spirit I think they remain until today. And I think it's the following: The contestant who does the track with the most amount of WOW is the one who will win that month.

[Taron]

Nice of you to dig up that post, that's very cool!
However, to my own amazement and real joy, all kinds of reasons produce the "WOW"-factor that put tracks in the top 5. Some of those reasons aren't necessarily how spectacular a mix is or the likes, but how much the music just works for people. While it's good form to get a decent mix, one doesn't have to nail the most amazing effects to make the cut. I love that very much!

[ontrackp]

My serious thoughts:

In my thinking, OSC has 3 elements - sound design, composition and production. If someone spends hours and hours on sound design and composition, hobbling their presentation by not allowing them to use the production tools at their disposal doesn't make sense to me. There have been plenty of months where people have won - with great sounding pieces -- using the plugs built in to the various DAW's, and they keep getting better. I really believe allowing the commercial plugs won't have a drastic, or maybe even any, effect on how people place, but for those of us who have them, and are serious about our production and keep trying to learn every month -- which is really the end game of OSC for me -- I don't think that allowing us to use the plugins we've purchased and are trying to improve our skills with is a problem. Bottom line is that all the commercial plugins won't make sub-standard sound design and composition win the day. You can only polish a turd so much.

[ontrackp]

I think it would make more sense to have a "purist" category -- allow 1 instance per sound, no plugs outside the DAW, no DAW automation and let people decide how they want to work. A big part of this is the fun - and limiting to one synth has been proven to be a great idea - let's please not put a lid on creativity by being overly limiting.

[ontrackp]

And for the record - if someone enters a piece and explains that they limited themselves to x instances, no effects, etc... and the piece has great sounds and creative composition, they will get a 5 from me. If someone uses all presets, makes just ok composition, is not really creative, but dresses it up with fancy effects, they will still get a low score. All the paid EQ , reverb and compression in the world won't help sound design or creative composition.

[ontrackp]

And one more thing -- if anyone gives the frequent winners a lower score because they win a lot, they're just being a dick.

[jasinski]

Oh yes, I have VOTED!

As for you, Jasinski, pffff, like you need anything to make your stuff sound MORE professional, hahaha...it's flipping genius engineering and sounds just like it wants to sound. Like there's nothing missing. I mean, with the ability to use convolution reverbs, one of the weakest aspects of free plugins should be fairly well dealt with and I should seek out a working free one at some point. I think, I only ever stumbled across a buggy one, but haven't looked in a long time.
But, yeah, you need no higher quality plugins!!! Don't you dare!!!

I suppose that is my point. It's not about getting an 'edge' over others or improving quality. It's about using the gear that you have. Purchased or free. What I mean is, I don't think the quality for those who are already high level will be that much improved.. if anything it would allow less experienced participants a leg up or short cut.. perhaps?

I DO understand and agree with the contest being about using a free Synth how ever. To me that is the "Spirit" of the contest. We all start with the same tube of paint. What you do from there IS the game.

[jasinski]

I think it would make more sense to have a "purist" category -- allow 1 instance per sound, no plugs outside the DAW, no DAW automation and let people decide how they want to work. A big part of this is the fun - and limiting to one synth has been proven to be a great idea - let's please not put a lid on creativity by being overly limiting.

I think there is a real danger in dividing the focus and the user base.

[ontrackp]

I DO understand and agree with the contest being about using a free Synth how ever. To me that is the "Spirit" of the contest. We all start with the same tube of paint. What you do from there IS the game.

+1

[jasinski]

OSC has 3 elements - sound design, composition and production...

...You can only polish a turd so much.

This!

[jasinski]

All that said... I wouldn't be opposed to SPECIAL edition month, where the challenge is to use 1 instance of 1 synth... Kind of like we've had "any one synth" or "+ commercial effects" special months.

[Lotiano]

Voted many nice songs..

[basa333]

I think it would make more sense to have a "purist" category -- allow 1 instance per sound, no plugs outside the DAW, no DAW automation and let people decide how they want to work. A big part of this is the fun - and limiting to one synth has been proven to be a great idea - let's please not put a lid on creativity by being overly limiting.

YES!

[Carl_saved]

...
So I suppose what we're looking for as a yardstick is the "wow! you did that whole track with one synth and hardly any effects????????" ...

viewtopic.php?p=3509098&sid=ce936877539 ... a#p3509098

Thanks for bringing that up! I agree that the "spirit" pretty much prevailed since then. What strikes me, however, is the "hardly any effects????????" part of that quote. This got pretty much lost. I hope that we all agree that this is different now than in the early days (without judging).

What also got lost is the novelty factor of using just one synth.
I have got the impression, we're trying to push the limits of using just one synth and don't notice how we're pushing the limits of the rules, too.
I don't argue against commercial FX.
What I'm arguing for is LIGHT effects use. If a synth has a limitation, embrace it. This would mean if it can't do highpass, don't do it with your EQ. If it doesn't have distortion, don't distort.
For me, the spirit of One Synth Challenge is to make amazing compositions where you don't miss the features of the synth because the composition doesn't need them.

The challenge should not be how to circumvent the limitations of the synth with other tools.
The challenge should be (IMO) how to circumvent the limitations of the synth by making excellent use of what the synth CAN do and therefore you don't think while listening "I wish the synth had distortion" or "if only the synth had a built-in phaser".

I'm not saying we should go back to making SID-like tunes. But we can learn valuable skills from the people who made SID tunes. They embraced the sound of the chip and placed their compositions around that, rather than the other way round. They had no choice. --- This should be part of One Synth Challenge again (and still is, yes).

[Carl_saved]

On the other hand side, I can totally see the point that z.prime made about using FX being common practice together with using synths ... kind of indecisive here