When electronic music sounded new, like the future... what went wrong!

[himalaya]

the problem with loop based loops is they think it's a real instrument, but obviously it's a copy of a real instrument.

And it's not a copy of a real instrument. A loop is a 'copy' of somebody playing an instrument.

[recursive one]

the problem with loop based loops

The problem with loop based loops is that they are loops which are based on loops in a loop like manner which leads to recursive loops

Or something like that, I think

[telecharge]

there's plenty of sampled looped based music that becomes more than a reuse of the loops.
there's creative use of loops as oppose to just dropping the loop on the track as is!!!

Granted! I wasn't writing about this at all.
If you do as you propose, your music piece will no longer be exclusively your own as it will contain music created by others. Makes sense so far?

Even if you mangle the loops creatively beyond recognition, you know that your music is not wholly original, since it...contains music created by others. Even if you mangle it all creatively.

So! I'm not referring to how creative you are with somebody else's loops. I am writing this in context of somebody who wants to create original music all by themselves, without any music content created by others. This is where that 'old chestnut' falls apart because it equates using pre-made loops with presets or instruments. Which is just silly.

[I was actually expecting people to misconstrue what I wrote. Ha!]

Sure, if "exclusively original" or "wholly original" is your goal then that makes sense. But a synth preset can also be a sequence which isn't much different than a loop, riff, sample of a melody, or chord progression. Which begs the question: How much of a sound can you use and call it yours? It's a slippery slope, and that's what I took from the "old chestnut".

[foosnark]

I think all the responses are interesting, but I was commenting more on the type of synthesis than the type of music.

Is there nothing left to do with synthesis other than tiny incremental improvements in copying something that already been done? Analogue, FM, Samples, PM, WT, Granular.

And additive, phase distortion, waveshaping, etc. Also let's pretend you wrote "subtractive" rather than "analog".

These are all just generalizations of techniques. "Granular" for instance includes pulsar synthesis, VOSIM, trainlets, granulization of a sample buffer (either fixed or real-time), etc. Subtractive can feature many different types of filters (based on analog circuits or not) as well as many different oscillator configurations to feed the filter. There are infinite possibilities within each of those, and very often, a given synthesizer combines multiple techniques as well (e.g. FM and subtractive, wavetables and subtractive, wavetable and FM, etc.)

So yes, almost every new piece of synth hardware and software is going to use one or more of those methods in some way. Some of them will specifically imitate gear of the past. Many of them do not. And there are a few things that are harder to categorize or use different methods (Waverazor for instance).

[cryophonik]

The problem with loop based loops is that they are loops which are based on loops in a loop like manner which leads to recursive loops

Or something like that, I think

I personally prefer loop-based single shots, which is basically me repeatedly slamming shots of single malt Scotch because this thread is making me loopy.

[himalaya]

there's plenty of sampled looped based music that becomes more than a reuse of the loops.
there's creative use of loops as oppose to just dropping the loop on the track as is!!!

Granted! I wasn't writing about this at all.
If you do as you propose, your music piece will no longer be exclusively your own as it will contain music created by others. Makes sense so far?

Even if you mangle the loops creatively beyond recognition, you know that your music is not wholly original, since it...contains music created by others. Even if you mangle it all creatively.

So! I'm not referring to how creative you are with somebody else's loops. I am writing this in context of somebody who wants to create original music all by themselves, without any music content created by others. This is where that 'old chestnut' falls apart because it equates using pre-made loops with presets or instruments. Which is just silly.

[I was actually expecting people to misconstrue what I wrote. Ha!]

but say you take a drum loop, slice to its parts, individual hits.
then they are just samples,single instrument sounds.

Correct! A sliced individual hit is not a music performance. Even if it's taken out of a music loop. You end up with an individual non-melodic, non-rhythmic, single hit. It's not music at this point. It's a sound with which you can make music.

sound is sound. is my point not misconstruing anything, just at some point, you get down to samples rather than loops.

Sound is sound, but a pre-made loop is an already created music piece. Go ahead, extract individual hits from the pre-made loop, that's fine if our mission is to focus on original output, original music that we create and not music that is augmented by pre-made loops created by others.

i personally as in imo, think it can be your own piece regardless of the provedanve of the sounds, it's what is done with them that matters most.

Not the provenance of the sounds, but loops. But stay focussed on why this sub-topic/offtopic started: The 'old chestnut'. A comparison was made, which stipulated that if using loops is cheating, then using presets, or even instruments is cheating as well. Stay focussed on this.

[dellboy]

but say you take a drum loop, slice to its parts, individual hits.
then they are just samples,single instrument sounds.

same with a chord sequence, slice it down to individual chords, it's no different to playing a one finger chord patch

sound is sound. is my point not misconstruing anything, just at some point, you get down to samples rather than loops.
why do this you may ask?
well, there are many reasons, one being availability and sometimes as a nod of appreciation to an artist or genre...

i personally as in imo, think it can be your own piece regardless of the provedanve of the sounds, it's what is done with them that matters most.

If it was art, as in painting, it would be a "collage".

[Dasheesh]

it is. they will tell you what to buy and you do. i'm not saying anyone is a bad musician (probably better then me), i'm literally telling you it is drama. no one cares about drama but the nightly news.

[vurt]

indeed, but there was no stipulation on how those loops would be used.
so just wanted to clear up that it is possible to use "loops" and still be creative.

if "loops" are kept as is, then of course, i would agree.

[vurt]

but say you take a drum loop, slice to its parts, individual hits.
then they are just samples,single instrument sounds.

same with a chord sequence, slice it down to individual chords, it's no different to playing a one finger chord patch

sound is sound. is my point not misconstruing anything, just at some point, you get down to samples rather than loops.
why do this you may ask?
well, there are many reasons, one being availability and sometimes as a nod of appreciation to an artist or genre...

i personally as in imo, think it can be your own piece regardless of the provedanve of the sounds, it's what is done with them that matters most.

If it was art, as in painting, it would be a "collage".

or a ransom note

[melomood]

Personally I'm impressed by the ability to not call out bitches while very much affirming that he thinks there are bitches to be called out

But he's too much of a man to do it

You slay,queen

Okrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[SLiC]

I think all the responses are interesting, but I was commenting more on the type of synthesis than the type of music.

Is there nothing left to do with synthesis other than tiny incremental improvements in copying something that already been done? Analogue, FM, Samples, PM, WT, Granular.

And additive, phase distortion, waveshaping, etc. Also let's pretend you wrote "subtractive" rather than "analog".

These are all just generalizations of techniques. "Granular" for instance includes pulsar synthesis, VOSIM, trainlets, granulization of a sample buffer (either fixed or real-time), etc. Subtractive can feature many different types of filters (based on analog circuits or not) as well as many different oscillator configurations to feed the filter. There are infinite possibilities within each of those, and very often, a given synthesizer combines multiple techniques as well (e.g. FM and subtractive, wavetables and subtractive, wavetable and FM, etc.)

So yes, almost every new piece of synth hardware and software is going to use one or more of those methods in some way. Some of them will specifically imitate gear of the past. Many of them do not. And there are a few things that are harder to categorize or use different methods (Waverazor for instance).

Yes, I few posts after my original one I was asking why everything was east coast (subtractive) rather than the (in my opinion) the more interesting west coast additive methods- I concluded people just like filters!

Most of the VSTs I use now use multiple methods (Phase Plant, Falcon, Rapid) as I personally think this is more interesting. I obviously agree there is a lot still that can be done, but developers seem to be spending most of their time developing facsimiles of old synths with very simple architecture, limited modulation possibilities and even limited polyphony. Accuracy over flexibility, novelty and invention.

[himalaya]

there's plenty of sampled looped based music that becomes more than a reuse of the loops.
there's creative use of loops as oppose to just dropping the loop on the track as is!!!

Granted! I wasn't writing about this at all.
If you do as you propose, your music piece will no longer be exclusively your own as it will contain music created by others. Makes sense so far?

Even if you mangle the loops creatively beyond recognition, you know that your music is not wholly original, since it...contains music created by others. Even if you mangle it all creatively.

So! I'm not referring to how creative you are with somebody else's loops. I am writing this in context of somebody who wants to create original music all by themselves, without any music content created by others. This is where that 'old chestnut' falls apart because it equates using pre-made loops with presets or instruments. Which is just silly.

[I was actually expecting people to misconstrue what I wrote. Ha!]

Sure, if "exclusively original" or "wholly original" is your goal then that makes sense. But a synth preset can also be a sequence which isn't much different than a loop, riff, sample of a melody, or chord progression. Which begs the question: How much of a sound can you use and call it yours? It's a slippery slope, and that's what I took from the "old chestnut".

Of course. A synth preset can consist of a melodic motif. ( I was waiting for somebody to bring this up ). So! Keeping to the mission statement: making music that comes from you, music that is original to you, you simply have to be honest with yourself and make a choice: in this mission, do I allow myself the use of presets which have a specific melody or pattern created by somebody else? That's it. It's not a slippery slope. It's about being focussed and honest with yourself.

Again, please note, I'm not judging whether it is valid to use loops or not. I'm breaking apart that 'old chestnut' as it doesn't make any sense. A loop contains music performance, an instrument is something on which you do the actual performance. So why would it be cheating to use an instrument or a preset of say a bass, lead, pad? Why would you need to build your own instrument if all you want is to make your own music?

[Dasheesh]

if you use loops use them creatively. pretty simple. stop using them as instrumentals. 12/16 bit sounds are not being used as modern instruments. instruments make their own sounds. play them .

[himalaya]

Most of the VSTs I use now use multiple methods (Phase Plant, Falcon, Rapid) as I personally think this is more interesting. I obviously agree there is a lot still that can be done, but developers seem to be spending most of their time developing facsimiles of old synths with very simple architecture, limited modulation possibilities and even limited polyphony. Accuracy over flexibility, novelty and invention.

It's also about coming of age. The coming of age of analogue modelling in software. That's why you also see so many emulations lately. And if these emulations really nail the sound of the original vintage units, then I'm all for it.

Maybe instead of wondering why there are so many emulations we should list some cool synths that eschew analog modelling and instead focus on new ideas (or maybe they use old synthesis designs but are deep enough to allow for new, unique sounds ?)