One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[tattiemannie]

Personally, I don't think any externally created modulations should be used. When creating rules, lines must be drawn which are clear to all. Shift the line once, even just a little, and it sends a message that the line is flexible, and can be shifted again .. and again, until it becomes so fuzzy, it can be ignored.

Firm rules which stay constant over time provide clarity. As I said earlier, limitations of a synth, and efforts to overcome same within the chosen synth are all part of the challenge. These have to acknowledged rather than masked.

'All external modulation fx' is a pretty clear definition ... so no grey areas

[] Peter:H []

Personally, I don't think any externally created modulations should be used. When creating rules, lines must be drawn which are clear to all. Shift the line once, even just a little, and it sends a message that the line is flexible, and can be shifted again .. and again, until it becomes so fuzzy, it can be ignored.

Firm rules which stay constant over time provide clarity. As I said earlier, limitations of a synth, and efforts to overcome same within the chosen synth are all part of the challenge. These have to acknowledged rather than masked.

'All external modulation fx' is a pretty clear definition ... so no grey areas

Interesting. As always it's complicated.
for instance if you drive a compressor with extrem values and put a number of these in a row you have kind of "distortion".
Second think of a hugh array of reverbs ... In these examples a single effect complise to the rules and does not do "harm" but in a extrem setup, the sound gets off being recognizable.
And with upcoming clap, daws that support clap can drive a synth with "voices mode" and each voice can be independently modulated... this could enable clap-enabled daws to simulate choruses.
The purest form of osc would therefore be no fx at all. Many have tried to suggest doing such "no fx" special rounds... but since I take part we haven't had one.

[tattiemannie]

Yeah Peter H, the examples you mention would indeed create sounds unrecognisable as those the synth is capable of, but I'm pretty sure this would be spotted and called out. It's good to be aware of this - and therefore avoid.

I think the rules, which have stood the test of time regarding fx are a good happy medium ... allowing fx which help produce a pleasant sounding track, whilst not 'burying' the synth.

As I say, it's good to be aware, but we don't want to tie ourselves up in creating solutions to problems which have not yet arisen.

I think that a one off 'no effects' special round would be interesting. Might not be as rewarding for participants - having to leave out spacial effects and mastering fx, but creating a good mix purely of sounds direct from the synth's output would certainly be a challenge

[L-EctroBit]

I think that a one off 'no effects' special round would be interesting.

Yes, I think so too. But a special edition like that would be pointless if you choose a synth like Surge. For me this experiment should have two main rules:

1) The synth used has no internal effects.

2) That the use of all external effects be prohibited. Not even limiters, compressors and EQ. Nothing, zero FXs. Just the synth.

A third additional rule, which could make the experiment even more interesting, would be to look for a synth that does not have factory presets (or very few).

[ELEX]

Agreed ! Up to and including the thought on presets.

[empphryio]

I think adding random limitations sounds kind of silly. And actually the rules are really too much already. Ultimately let's make good music. You can still do that using free stuff. But taking away chorus, heavy distortion, reverse reverb... We're just removing genres and hurting the quality of the music.

The fact that maybe someone can make something great with even more limitations is a big ole so what? I can hop on one foot to the corner store and probably communicate with cotton stuffed in my ears.

[L-EctroBit]

I think adding random limitations sounds kind of silly. And actually the rules are really too much already.

Just in case, to avoid misunderstandings, I wasn't talking about permanently changing the rules that already exist. I think they are fine and are the product of years of implementation. What I was referring to in my last comment is the possibility of making, for just one month, a special edition in which only the synth will be used, totally prohibiting the use of both internal and external effects.

I believe that in the entire history of OSC this has never been done and possibly never will be. This could be the version that most represents the name of this contest OSC (One Synth Challenge) and not what we really do which is OSCWABOE (One Synth Challenge With A Bunch Of Effects). Although I think everyone here will agree that prohibiting the use of effects will negatively affect the quality of the music. There's no doubt.

May be in the future I will be encouraged to make a track for OSC without a single effect. I think it will be fun.

[ELEX]

...
But taking away chorus, heavy distortion, reverse reverb... We're just removing genres and hurting the quality of the music.
...

No we're not. The absence of chorus, reverse reverb, etc. is not detrimental to the quality of the music at all. And OSC, by it's very nature, is not equally suited to all genres at all times. Nor should it be. The chosen synth determines what is suited best. Artists should adapt. It is a fundamental aspect of the the challenge.

And it's seems no more than logical to me to exclude FX that dominate the character of the input they process, lest everything ends up sounding the same. Which is to say: like the processors, not the synth.

[Tj Shredder]

If you throw enough reverb around, even one ping only sounds great…
Lets keep the challenge part of the game…
Listen to a Bach partita for solo violin, it simply does not need effects to be great music. The challenge part also demands composition vs. just construction/production…

[empphryio]

The fundamental aspect of the challenge is whatever we or Richard?? want it to be. It's not like we're supreme court justices trying to interpret the constitution. You're free to have the opinion it's all about limitations and finding some natural character to the synth. In my opinion it should be the best possible music for free for what little my opinion matters. Chorus, etc exist for a reason.

[tattiemannie]

I think it is important to acknowledge that OSC is not the 'be all and end all' of music production. The comp has developed, sustained and preserved it's own nature and character for 15? years now ... it will never be 'for everyone' ... but there's something out there for 'everyone else'.

Although my opinion differs from others, I am extremely pleased to find that OSC has survived many discussions which could potentially ave 'picked away at the seams to unravel the garment'.

Over the years ( and admittedly, being absent for much of the last ... err .. decade? ... so I am no great authority) 'special comps' have been included (two synth challenge, any synth challenge etc) ... so this current one with commercial synths allowed, although not what I would favour, is still in keeping with this 'tradition' we have created together. That in itself has been a challenge which all who have participated have risen to and helped sustain.

So, similarly, a 'no fx' comp would not be the beginning of the end by any means. All it means is that some, maybe many, would sit it out for a month ... perhaps giving space to others who like the idea. Next month? yep ... they'll be back ... maybe with a few more 'converts'.

It would be far less of a challenge if something wacky, different, quirky, or downright infuriating was not 'tossed in' every so often. Keep it fresh, keep it interesting, keep it challenging, keep it recognisable as an established competition in the same way we do of our monthly chosen synth.

Look at at this way. There are some incredible prizes on offer every month. Should it be easy to win these? Should a formulaic approach be the winning way? OSC should be an adventure (or even a misadventure) .. not a walk in the park.

[tattiemannie]

I think that a one off 'no effects' special round would be interesting.

Yes, I think so too. But a special edition like that would be pointless if you choose a synth like Surge. For me this experiment should have two main rules:

1) The synth used has no internal effects.

2) That the use of all external effects be prohibited. Not even limiters, compressors and EQ. Nothing, zero FXs. Just the synth.

A third additional rule, which could make the experiment even more interesting, would be to look for a synth that does not have factory presets (or very few).

I don't agree nor disagree .... Your suggestion def has merits as a 'special comp' ... and certainly 'ups' the challenge factor.

But equally, a 'middle ground' .... using a synth with a wide range of internal effects ... but prohibiting ALL external fx would make a lot of sense .... after all ... should anyone NEED to use external fx on such a synth? ... if the internal fx are part of the synth, then should it not be considered a part of the whole? And if the whole can be presented untarnished and unblemished? (Oooh Matron )

I canna comment on the current 'culture' ... but I can say for certainty, that back in the early days of OSC, declaring a small number of fx plugs in a track was kinda a 'badge of honour'

Don't get me wrong ... not frowning on anyone or anything. I just have an unusual amount of time on my hands to revisit the wonderful OSC and stick my rotten old oar in

[tattiemannie]

Remember folks ... there is no such thing as a flawed idea.... even if implementation is disastrous

[tattiemannie]

Anyway, here's a daft idea which might work .... say we approach a developer of a 'mouth wateringly' good synth, and ask that he/she/they create/cobble a version which has no presets? and will not accept presets to be loaded ... even those which would load into the 'original' version?

Lets say they will even 'corrupt' the GUI to make it unrecognisable in comparison to the original? ... you know? rename a few controls? add/remove some parameters? .... Sounds complicated ... but errr remember, I used to create synths/effects plus GUI from scratch as prizes on a monthly basis .... so a develepor of a synth is simply asked to 'stir the porridge ..

(of course, the identity of the 'original' synth would be revealed ... if not already guessed ... at the close of submissions .... any devs looking in who are interested? ... err don't respond here ... contact the chief ... who I assume is now BJ Porter?? ... correct me if I'm wrong ( hope I'm not ... Always enjoyed chats wi' BJ )

[IV!]

+1 to the idea of a month without external effects, I've been waiting for this for a long time!) I see three probable directions:
1. One synthesizer (without/almost without internal FX), but it can be boring for many.
2. More choice, for example Any Full Bucket or something similar, but this is an opportunity to put yourself in unequal conditions, although someone (maybe even me) will still choose MPS.
3. Cardinal - fork of VCV Rack is waiting for us here, we could give it a month without external FX to encourage participants to use and study its modules.