Why do I seem to like free synths better ?

[FapFilter]

Admittedly but I think the OP was about general preference and not black and white purism. People often generalize in conversations because it is easier to do so but I would say that, on the whole, the core of a good piece of music does not require a ton of fancy gadgets. One can too easily get bogged down by one's fascination for gadgetry and exciting sounds and forget the whole purpose of making music

indeed, YMMV of course, but personally i see no real benefit in creativity when you use 20+ synths, 20+ samplers, 20+ EQs, 20+ compressors, 20+ reverbs, 20+ delays, etc...
In fact, depending on the music of course, even one capable sampler alone without any additional instruments can offer more than you need for most tasks.
Of course true minimalism can also hinder you too if you take it too far, but folders with hundreds of plugins in each category that do more or less the same makes it almost impossible to ever use most of them to their fullest potential just due to the sheer amount

[vurt]

True, but how much of that are they using constantly?
Of course everyone works differently and for some, “gazillions of gear“ might make perfectly sense in their way of working creatively, but on the other hands, i have also seen / read numerous interviews of some of the best musicians, film- or video game makers who seem to be in the “less is often more / limitations sparkle your creativity camp“

That just might be unconscious confirmation bias. Ive seen/read huge numbers of interviews of the same sort of people over the past 20+ years, and I'd say its no more prevalent amongst them than anyone else.

The other thing I'd say is that the more dogmatic proponents of the 'less is more' thing seem, for some reason, to deliberately overlook the fact that its entirely possible for someone to work minimally at any given point in time by using a subset of a larger pool of gear. I guess that's about 'winning the internet' more than it is about a reasonable examination of people's workflows, but the maxim is definitely skewed; more can easily be less, as well as a different less the next day.

Its fine if someone doesnt have a use for more than one hammer themselves, as it were, but trying to say that noone does, is just wrong.

have you got a screwdriver dad?

you're no son of mine

[FapFilter]

plus i never mentioned “no one“ would need more than just one of anything.
And regarding those hammers: of course there are different hammers that are better for certain things due to different sizes, weights, materials and other attributes so one could actually need more than one.
On the other hand, when it comes to being “creative“ one could also say that you are more creative when you use the “wrong“ hammer for the task due to limitations (not owning the most suited one), or abusing something else if you are lacking a proper “hammer“ altogether
And i would really like to see a use case for all these pictured hammers, where you desperately need everyone and none of the others could do a similar good job

[Vortifex]

Edited

[whyterabbyt]

Admittedly but I think the OP was about general preference and not black and white purism. People often generalize in conversations because it is easier to do so but I would say that, on the whole, the core of a good piece of music does not require a ton of fancy gadgets.

Oh, absolutely. But its not exactly uncommon round here for that kind of generalisation to become the root of aggressive, narrowminded dogma.

One can too easily get bogged down by one's fascination for gadgetry and exciting sounds and forget the whole purpose of making music. Of course, if it's just fun you want, then I am the same as everybody - let me loose in a studio full of expensive gadgets, please!

I guess my 'whole purpose' is different, then; it is 'just' fun. Im not sure I'm that great at engaging with the threshold for 'music' in the first place, not really convinced I actually want to. I'd call it 'art' but the inverted snobs would get their hackles up.

[whyterabbyt]

And i would really like to see a use case for all these pictured hammers, where you desperately need everyone and none of the others could do a similar good job

'Desperately' is a strawman. Noone desparately needs to work minimally.

I'd be less convinced that you werent edging towards dogma if you werent presenting a case that didnt resemble 'noone needs to so noone should.'
Lets try for argumentation that's symmetric, maybe.

And for the record, if you're doing silver forging, then you will find a difference between different shapes of hammer, in different weights. And I'd only ever expect someone with the number of hammers shown will have got there through time and experience; beginners start off with a small set that can 'do a similar job' and the finessing comes as their skill grows.

I mean there are specific reasons those hammers exist in different types and weights, but you;re basically implying the silversmith who chooses to have an array like that doesnt have as enlightened a perspective on it as you.

[vurt]

my favourite hammers, in order of preference...

1: war hammer.
2: sledge hammer.
3: claw hammer
4: toffee hammer

i don't need any others personally

[vurt]

my granddad probably would be in despair about that though, he was very specific tool for a specific job, not quite to the extent of the photo, but he must have had at least 20 different claw hammers, of varying weights.

[FapFilter]

Again: i'm not even talking about minimalism and i don't follow that route either as it can indeed hinder you (though of course the more “skilled/gifted/talented“ you are, the more you can get away with less “gear“ / tools“ without actually being restricted by the “limitations“)

I even said that there are good reasons for different hammers, but if you are skilled, you don't need every single hammer on the planet to do the work, even for the most delicate , especially if the hammers are more or less in the same class / dimensions / wieght, etc. where it's more or less a question of personal preferences if you like your hammer to be a few grams lighter or heavier for instance (though of course just one single hammer will definetly work with only the most struggle for some tasks or even not at all (a street worker's pneumatic hammer for a wedding ring for instance)
In many cases though, you can do with fewer tools, especially the more skilled/experienced/or even “just“ creative you are

[donkey tugger]

Reminds me of one of my work colleagues' concise interview notes on an answer given by a candidate for a job;

"....2-Something about hammers?"

[whyterabbyt]

In many cases though, you can do with fewer hammers, especially the more skilled you are

In many cases, though, you can do with more hammers, especially the more skilled you are.

ie again, this an asymmetric presentation. being able to do a thing one way is implcitly presented as preferable as to doing it another way, in order to signpost that the first way is preferable. meanwhile it is indicated that a defence is required to justify the second option merely because the first option exists.

[excuse me please]

The downside of working with hammers: you can only use two of them simultaneously.

[FapFilter]

In many cases, though, you can do with more hammers, especially the more skilled you are.

Of course, i even basically said that in one of my first posts in this thread. It's a matter of preference, but still: tons of tools (especially when they are very comparable) are no requirement for creative work, even on professional level.
If you prefer to work with tons of tools: fine, but so is working within reasonable (or even unreasonable if you prefer) limitations.
None of these are an indicator for “superior“ or “inferior“ results.
It's the person(s) that actually make or break things and how they prefer to work.

[Teksonik]

Limitations are just that.....limitations. They bring no advantage.

People who paint know better. Modern pop music shows that with tons of technology, the quality of the music, more frequently than not, suffers. Of course you choose the colours according to the subject. How many spectrum colours are you going to use to paint a sunset? Only reds, oranges and yellows.

That is a misquote. Zerocrossing didn't write that I did.

Your point about painting a sunset with blue is absurd.

People who paint know that more colors means the wider range of paintings they can create. My point about limiting a painter to the color blue is not absurd it makes a perfectly valid point. Try to create a painting of anything that is not blue.

Yes you might only use reds, oranges, and yellows to paint a sunset but I've seen sunsets that have purple in them and so to accurately capture that moment you must expand your palette. Now try to paint a tranquil lake with only red and orange. Are you getting my point?

Of course you choose the colours according to the subject.

And that's my point, you choose the sounds you use to convey the type of music you want to create. If you limit yourself to only analog type sounds then all your songs are going to be limited to that sonic footprint. Now add in 8 Op FM synthesis and the range of sounds you can create expands. Add in multi-sampling based synthesis and your possibilities expand exponentially.

Unless of course you want every one of your songs to have exactly the same sonic footprint then more power to you. That would bore me to death.

If you personally think that limiting yourself in any way makes you more creative then by all means party on. But in my opinion you're still limiting yourself and stifling the possibilities to be more creative.

I do not wish to handcuff myself in any way when making music. It is the power of choice that brings creativity to me. I started out with very limited hardware synths and trust me I am an order of magnitude more creative today with all the great synths we have at our disposal today.

[whyterabbyt]

Of course, i even said that in one of my first posts in this thread. It's a matter of preference, but still: tons of tools (especially when they are very comparable) are no requirement for creative work, even on professional level.

it is about preference, but you're still presenting asymmetrically. a minimal set of tools is no requirement for creative work, even on a professional level.

(meanwhile, a professional jeweller working with sterling silver, carat gold, and non-precious metals is probably going to have multiples of near-identical hammers, pliers, saws and files, no matter what. because that's not about preference. funny old world, innit.)