Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[excuse me please]

You create music without any keyboard of any kind ? I mean you don't play a keyboard and instead draw everything in by mouse within your DAW ? I mean if you are editing notes by mouse after recording by hand then fair enough... but the notion of doing everything by hand is an inanely slow method of composing even with programmable VST's.

There are actually many EDM producers that do this.
Classical composers didn't have "record" function along sequencer, so guess what they did: the equivalent of drawing notes, but this time on a paper.

sure, but they wrote down what they had already played....

Not exactly, they usually wrote down what they had concocted in their minds before. What they heard etc. Or they wrote for the emsemble, the soloist they had in mind. Beethoven was deaf at the end of his life and Mozart, well Mozart wrote pieces down the way he had figured them out in his head while indulging in the most shallow activities of his time. Guys like Chopin and Bruckner would torture themselves until something sounded the way they thought it should sound. In disregard of the fact that Chopin was a famous pianist, it did not bother Chopin to create what he had in mind. After all, an instrument is just a tool when it comes to composition. Btw tools were pretty limited in those days. Therefore they had to excel at composition. Which they did afaiac.

Pretty sure Mozart could listen to the whole top 10 nowadays together and write them basically down in a few minutes. No problem for him. Once a friend asked him if he remembered a quintet he had listened to 3 weeks ago. Mozart said: "Sure, but would you like me to repeat the 3 mistakes they made as well?"

[e-crooner]

Your concept of music is so different from mine. Wall of sound Is that a synonym for noise?

Your grandparents probably thought so -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound

I love chords and chord sequences. You probably also use them even if you spread the chords' notes across different instruments.

No, I don't. I don't layer parts at all. Ever. I find the one instrument/sound that can do the job and that's it. I do use chord theory to pitch parts in an arrangement and I occasionally use power chords in guitar parts but that's as far as I ever go with it.

But I prefer the chord be made on the same instrument such as a synth pad or a Rhodes.

If I ever got three wishes from a genie, one of them would be to erase the electric piano from history. It is the saddest of all the instruments. It's what the entertainer at your grandparents' nursing home would play. Horrible, horrible thing.

My parents you mean, even I was already around in the 60's, but of an age where one doesn't care much about music, yet

I didn't say anything about layering. What I said is that you also use chords, because without them you could only use a single note at a time in your music. So what you do is spread your chords across different instruments in the course of the arrangement.

To me the electric piano is a great instrument, I opened a thread on Rhodes emulations just a couple of days ago, it is one of my favorite sounds in music

[AnX]

You create music without any keyboard of any kind ? I mean you don't play a keyboard and instead draw everything in by mouse within your DAW ? I mean if you are editing notes by mouse after recording by hand then fair enough... but the notion of doing everything by hand is an inanely slow method of composing even with programmable VST's.

There are actually many EDM producers that do this.
Classical composers didn't have "record" function along sequencer, so guess what they did: the equivalent of drawing notes, but this time on a paper.

sure, but they wrote down what they had already played....

Not exactly, they usually wrote down what they had concocted in their minds before. What they heard etc. Or they wrote for the emsemble, the soloist they had in mind. Beethoven was deaf at the end of his life and Mozart, well Mozart wrote pieces down the way he had figured them out in his head while indulging in the most shallow activities of his time. Guys like Chopin and Bruckner would torture themselves until something sounded the way they thought it should sound. In disregard of the fact that Chopin was a famous pianist, it did not bother Chopin to create what he had in mind. After all, an instrument is just a tool when it comes to composition. Btw tools were pretty limited in those days. Therefore they had to excel at composition. Which they did afaiac.

Pretty sure Mozart could listen to the whole top 10 nowadays together and write them basically down in a few minutes. No problem for him. Once a friend asked him if he remembered a quintet he had listened to 3 weeks ago. Mozart said: "Sure, but would you like me to repeat the 3 mistakes they made as well?"

all hearsay and assumptions

[excuse me please]

You create music without any keyboard of any kind ? I mean you don't play a keyboard and instead draw everything in by mouse within your DAW ? I mean if you are editing notes by mouse after recording by hand then fair enough... but the notion of doing everything by hand is an inanely slow method of composing even with programmable VST's.

There are actually many EDM producers that do this.
Classical composers didn't have "record" function along sequencer, so guess what they did: the equivalent of drawing notes, but this time on a paper.

sure, but they wrote down what they had already played....

Not exactly, they usually wrote down what they had concocted in their minds before. What they heard etc. Or they wrote for the emsemble, the soloist they had in mind. Beethoven was deaf at the end of his life and Mozart, well Mozart wrote pieces down the way he had figured them out in his head while indulging in the most shallow activities of his time. Guys like Chopin and Bruckner would torture themselves until something sounded the way they thought it should sound. In disregard of the fact that Chopin was a famous pianist, it did not bother Chopin to create what he had in mind. After all, an instrument is just a tool when it comes to composition. Btw tools were pretty limited in those days. Therefore they had to excel at composition. Which they did afaiac.

Pretty sure Mozart could listen to the whole top 10 nowadays together and write them basically down in a few minutes. No problem for him. Once a friend asked him if he remembered a quintet he had listened to 3 weeks ago. Mozart said: "Sure, but would you like me to repeat the 3 mistakes they made as well?"

all hearsay and assumptions

So are your comments in this case.. what is your point???

[AnX]

which part was too difficult for you to understand?

[wagtunes]

What I meant by my comment was that rack mount synths were cheaper than synths that had keyboards attached to them, sometimes by as much as $500 or more. That's why I had one keyboard controller and a bunch of rack mounts that STILL cost me a fortune compared to what I spend today on soft synths. Then of course add to that the amount of space taken up, repairs, etc. Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

[AnX]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

[wagtunes]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Which is a subjective opinion. Cost, repairs and space consumed are objective facts. So I'll take my facts over opinion.

[excuse me please]

which part was too difficult for you to understand?

Can't remember I had any difficulties as it comes to addressing your comments in this thread afaik.

But I do know, when I am speaking of "difficulties" and their possible consequences in audio production land that you don't have a clue about composition. I have everything in my head. From the keynote I exactly know how all notes must sound or not. It's not that hard to learn, who is making the assumptions here? You don't know, apparently.

Many producers do have this ability. No assumptions here. As it comes to classical music.. how are you going to conduct, record etc. an orchestra if you don't know where and when the notes are played exactly? How are you going to write a piece of classical music? Oh, just drop some note here and there.. maybe it "works" some day. Of course. Why not turn the oceans upside down? Takes less effort, I'd say.

So the conductor does not hear when a wrong note is played by any of the musicians. That's why they get paid millions a year in top orchestras. He just looks at his script and notices "that's a g," looks at his 50 musicians... and says: "can't go wrong here"

[AnX]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Which is a subjective opinion. Cost, repairs and space consumed are objective facts. So I'll take my facts over opinion.

oh boy.....

[anomandaris1]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Well, that's pretty subjective (or even wrong, cuz there is plenty of mediocre to crap (Timbre Wolf) stuff or even useless - for anyone that values his time - and expensive stuff - basically, modular walls.)
I personally think that existing hardware synths and workstations are like 15-20 years behind software, especially for studio usage. The only interesting stuff in hardware, imo, are accompaniment arranger keyboards (which are actually popular among performers), but they don't even have good synthesis engines and are held back in functionality, so they don't kill the dedicated synthesis/workstations keyboard markets

[AnX]

which part was too difficult for you to understand?

Can't remember I had any difficulties as it comes to addressing your comments in this thread afaik.

But I do know, when I am speaking of "difficulties" and their possible consequences in audio production land that you don't have a clue about composition.

assumption

who is making the assumptions here? You don't know, apparently.

def looks like you...

[chk071]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Which is a subjective opinion.

I don't know about that. The human hearing seems to favour a lot of the things which happen in analog synthesizers, or also in other physical instruments to the precise and sterile things happening in the digital world. So, I wouldn't really say it's subjective. It seems to be objective.

Not that I wouldn't want to emphasize the progression that software has made. But, just like in other cases where you simulate real world behavior, it only always can be an approximation. Whether or not the differences which are left still matter is arguable.

[AnX]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Well, that's pretty subjective (or even wrong, cuz there is plenty of mediocre to crap (Timbre Wolf) stuff or even useless - for anyone that values his time - and expensive stuff - basically, modular walls.)
I personally think that existing hardware synths and workstations are like 15-20 years behind software, especially for studio usage. The only interesting stuff in hardware, imo, are accompaniment arranger keyboards (which are actually popular among performers), but they don't even have good synthesis engines and are held back in functionality, so they don't kill the dedicated synthesis/workstations keyboard markets

again, oh boy...


see this?

good


usually it means a person is joking.....

[wagtunes]

Why would anybody want to go back to those days?

cos they sound better

Which is a subjective opinion.

I don't know about that. The human hearing seems to favour a lot of the things which happen in analog synthesizers, or also in other physical instruments to the precise and sterile things happening in the digital world. So, I wouldn't really say it's subjective. It seems to be objective.

Not that I wouldn't want to emphasize the progression that software has made. But, just like in other cases where you simulate real world behavior, it only always can be an approximation. Whether or not the differences which are left still matter is arguable.

Except you can't measure "sounds better".

Look, if I have two metals, I can objectively measure which one is stronger under stress. That is an objective "fact".

Saying "I like analog XYZ synth because...." whatever, is by definition opinion. Even if 99 out of 100 people think so, it is still opinion. People saying "The Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group of all time" is opinion.

I can go to Webster's dictionary, if you like, and post the definitions of both objective and subjective. There is no room for argument between the two.

But ultimately, who cares? If people want to believe "objectively" that hardware synths, in general, sound better than software, God bless them. With a raging pandemic threatening to end my life in a heartbeat, it's just not worth arguing about.