Well, for my ears 10/10 death metal tones are absolute, cringeworthy garbage, no matter who is doing it or what they are using but that doesn't invalidate anything, it is simply a reflection of my personal taste. (Death Metal is the corniest, cheesiest rock genre I can think of. No, honestly, it's like a really bad parody, poorly executed.)
AngelCityOutlaw wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:54 pm
Synths are too varied to have a distinct timbre that is generally agreed to be "what a synth sounds like".
Your problem is that you want to equate the word "synth" with "violin" or "oboe" but you should see it as a class or group of instruments like "stringed" instruments or "woodwind" or "brass" or "percussion". It's a catch-all category, not the specific name for a particular type of instrument. Just as within "stringed instruments" there are sub-categories like "bowed" and "plucked", within the synth category are things like 'anal
ogue" and "sample-based" synths. Nobody gets their knickers in a knot when you refer to a guitar and a violin both as "stringed instruments" so why should you get all antsy over people calling a Minimoog and DUNE "synths"?
l of those songs sound awful to me.
That speaks volumes about your lack of exposure to a variety of music, not to the worth of those songs. After all, two of them enjoyed sustained commercial success over many years and are widely regarded as having influenced many other successful artists. (The other one, of course, is my band, which has done neither of those things.)
[quot]Strings have been used in basically every genre and fit because strings do not define the style.[/quote]
So have synthesisers for exactly the same reason.
You don't need a specific violin tone to be authentic to strings used in rock, disco, funk, new age, etc.
But you do need a violin, no other stringed instrument will do, will it? Again, it's a simple matter of perspective.
This is not the case for synths or electric guitars.
Of course it is. The Cars used the same Minimoog as Gary Numan and Velvet Acid Christ and 1000 other artists playing 100 other styles of music. But other artists in those genres will have used a dozen other synths, too - CS-80, Jupiter 8, Prophet V - and most of the time you won't know which it is you are listening to. I doubt there is a single genre of music that hasn't seen synths used in it.
Artists from Chuck Berry to Richie Blackmore have used the Gibson Les Paul. It's been used for genres as diverse as Heavy Metal, Jazz and Country music. But it's not the only electric guitar you are allowed to use for any of those genres, you'll see just as many Rickenbackers and Fender Stratocasters and great players who will swear by their Epiphone clones, too.
That's because you don't buy a cello to sound like a viola. The correct analogy here is it's like buying a cello that doesn't sound like what a cello is supposed to sound like.
Buy the same token, you don't buy Absynth if you want to sound like Howard Jones.
When you buy a synth or electric guitar rig, what exactly are you trying to sound like?
In my case it was "a rock band". That was my only goal - to sound like a rock band without having to use a guitar, bass or drums.
of possibilities and (in)appropriate choices.
Just as I'm sure some people buy a tenor sax when what they really needed was an Alto. So what?
not truly play death metal, with Kenny Wayne Shepard's usual guitar tone.
Why would you want to sound like someone else? Surely you'd want to forge your own path?
The fact that some synths retroactively have the capability to emulate what came before them does not invalidate the claim that specific synths are required for specific styles;
No they aren't. That's just bullshit that people like to use, it has no basis in fact. Take, for example, the venerable acid bass line. There are those who would say you can only do that with a real TB303, yet there are countless examples of people doing what is recognisably an acid bass line with any of 100 different synths and doing so successfully.
A classical guitar from 200 years ago can play what one from 2020 can, and vice versa, with equal authenticity.
But it can't play what a modern electric guitar can play, can it? And that's the perfect example - just like synths, guitar technology has moved on and there are many, many things you can do with an electric guitar that you could never contemplate with an acoustic. Similarly, there are many things you can do with a modern synth that you cannot with an old model.
The mistake that you are making with the term "expression" here, is that you are treating this term as if it applies to purely technical considerations of performance.
No, that's your mistake. Expression is nothing more than a way of expressing emotion through your playing.[/quote]
A synth cannot replicate the "expression" of acoustic instruments because of physics.
And a violin can't replicate the expression of a saxophone for exactly the same reason. But they al have their own means of imparting emotion through the way they are played. That's what makes them different.
The sound is not affected by its physical environment, you don't hear little finger squeaks, rattling wood, breath noise, and other imperfections because they don't exist for a synth.
You could put them in if you wanted to but I think most players spend their lives trying to get rid of that sort of thing, don't they?
I'm not trying to persuade you into not liking or preferring synths or something. I am explaining why I personally don't prefer writing music with them.
And I'm trying to explain to you why your thought processes around the subject are deeply flawed. Or why your thought process only applies to a tiny sub-section of circumstances, which you chop and change to fit whatever part of the argument you need to bolster. The reality is that everything you've said can be true for one small subset of the overall scene/market but nothing that you've said applies universally. It's all about finding what works and doing that. It's simple, really, but you choose to make it hard on yourself by seeing things the wrong way.