Is the Virtual Instrument era over?

[SamDi]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong. People seem to forget that all The Beatles albums were recorded using 4 or 8 track tape and anyone should be able to make a great song with those kinds of limitations.

How many tracks would you need for that?


or that?


Artists, who use regularly over 100 tracks (proven - MDK has a demo track, delivered with FL Studio, and for Infected Mushroom, there is a video on YT, where they tell, that they have many, many tracks in each project) and doing it very right (not to say they are of the best IMO).

[_leras]

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments:

https://www.kvraudio.com/plugins/the-newest-plugins

Not really. Synths just take a lot more effort that fx. These days you even need a mini fx suite if you want to put out a synth.

[FrogsInPants]

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments:

https://www.kvraudio.com/plugins/the-newest-plugins

Does it, though? Part of the problem here may be that you are arguing that the "virtual instrument era" is over, but you haven't even defined what you mean by that. If it's the era in which the majority of audio software development is new virtual instruments, then sure, it's relevant how many new virtual instruments are being developed. I think that would be silly. If it's the era in which virtual instruments dominate the market for music production products, then you have to look at sales data, not the number of new releases. An economist might prefer that, but it's not what I would be interested in. If it's the era in which virtual instruments have a significant or dominant role in music production, then you have to look at how music is being produced, not the number of new releases. That's the kind of thing I think would be relevant to most people engaged in making music. So, what do you mean? What is the actual position you are arguing for?

[tony10000]

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments:

https://www.kvraudio.com/plugins/the-newest-plugins

Not really. Synths just take a lot more effort that fx. These days you even need a mini fx suite if you want to put out a synth.

Yeah, and a lot of devs don't want to put in the time and effort because making a VI that sells in any qty for $100+ is very difficult. The market is pretty saturated and the failure rate is high. Much easier to make effects and easier to sell.

[Guenon]

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments

Nah. To make sure, I counted instances of instrument plugins and effect plugins on the first five pages. About 40% instrument plugins, about 50% effect plugins, about 10% all the rest. If anything, that's surprisingly many instruments, given all this talk of "the virtual instrument era" being over. At the very least, it shows a pretty big bias from the get go if these relative shares of development are presented in the above manner.

Even more problematic is the whole idea of what constitutes "an era" in the history of culture/technology and how an era can be said to be "over." I'm one of those who suggest that an era, in a cultural context (of technological tools and their impact on artistic and working practices, etc.) like this, is better defined through use, applicability and relevance of said tools/instruments when dealing with the production of cultural artefacts, not primarily when producing new iterations of the tools themselves. Preferably look at it from the viewpoint of how much music/audio is being made in such a way that there are virtual instruments present in the workflow. These kinds of works started appearing, historically, already a while ago - are they now starting to disappear? Or have virtual instruments solidified their place in modern production, still being heard in numerous works of music and sound design and so forth? On my part, I'd say the idea of that particular era, once begun, is still relevant today - and that would also mean, one can comfortably say the era isn't "over." After presenting the actual question, all that stuff you have been speculating about afterwards seems pretty irrelevant by comparison.

[tony10000]

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments

Nah. To make sure, I counted instances of instrument plugins and effect plugins on the first five pages. About 40% instrument plugins, about 50% effect plugins, about 10% all the rest. If anything, that's surprisingly many instruments, given all this talk of "the virtual instrument era" being over. At the very least, it shows a pretty big bias from the get go if these relative shares of development are presented in the above manner.

Even more problematic is the whole idea of what constitutes "an era" in the history of culture/technology and how an era can be said to be "over." I'm one of those who suggest that an era, in a cultural context (of technological tools and their impact on artistic and working practices, etc.) like this, is better defined through use, applicability and relevance of said tools/instruments when dealing with the production of cultural artefacts, not primarily when producing new iterations of the tools themselves. Preferably look at it from the viewpoint of how much music/audio is being made in such a way that there are virtual instruments present in the workflow. These kinds of works started appearing, historically, already a while ago - are they now starting to disappear? Or have virtual instruments solidified their place in modern production, still being heard in numerous works of music and sound design and so forth? On my part, I'd say the idea of that particular era, once begun, is still relevant today - and that would also mean, one can comfortably say the era isn't "over." After presenting the actual question, all that stuff you have been speculating about afterwards seems pretty irrelevant by comparison.

Most new "instruments" I see these days are nothing but sample players. Easy and fast to create and there are a lot of platforms to make them. HISE, Decent Sampler, etc. You don't see that many synths these days, due to the time and effort it takes to create them. Cherry Audio is the exception. They crank them out pretty quickly, probably due to the fact that they can prototype in Voltage Modular.

[xphen0m]

No, the virtual instrument era is not over.

[tony10000]

No, the virtual instrument era is not over.

Though I believe we are well past the peak...

[Guenon]

Most new "instruments" I see these days are nothing but sample players. Easy and fast to create and there are a lot of platforms to make them. HISE, Decent Sampler, etc. You don't see that many synths these days, due to the time and effort it takes to create them. Cherry Audio is the exception. They crank them out pretty quickly, probably due to the fact that they can prototype in Voltage Modular.

Check the top pages of the search you linked, yourself. Plenty of actual synths there. Similarly one could also argue that "most new effects are just reiterated familiar delay, eq, reverb, dynamics etc. algorithms, easy and fast to create", but that's just trivial debate compared to dealing with the actual idea of an era and how you define it - and it then being "over." If this was an actual premise and research question for an academic historical essay/study, these underlying problems would promptly be pointed out to you in the first seminar session you presented them in

[tony10000]

Most new "instruments" I see these days are nothing but sample players. Easy and fast to create and there are a lot of platforms to make them. HISE, Decent Sampler, etc. You don't see that many synths these days, due to the time and effort it takes to create them. Cherry Audio is the exception. They crank them out pretty quickly, probably due to the fact that they can prototype in Voltage Modular.

Check the top pages of the search you linked, yourself. Plenty of actual synths there. Similarly one could also argue that "most new effects are just reiterated familiar delay, eq, reverb, dynamics etc. algorithms, easy and fast to create", but that's just trivial debate compared to dealing with the actual idea of an era and how you define it - and it then being "over." If this was an actual premise and research question for an academic historical essay/study, these underlying problems would promptly be pointed out to you in the first seminar session you presented them in

Humor me...provide the names of the new instruments that you see that aren't sample players.

[tony10000]

"...dealing with the actual idea of an era and how you define it - and it then being "over." If this was an actual premise and research question for an academic historical essay/study, these underlying problems would promptly be pointed out to you in the first seminar session you presented them in

BTW, that was a question, not a thesis...

[Guenon]

Humor me...provide the names of the new instruments that you see that aren't sample players.

Nah, I just wanted to point out the whole premise for the question itself, in the manner you present it and are "backing it up" and even literally going "prove me wrong", is all in all pretty sketchy, and the discussion might be a lot more interesting... if it weren't. (Or if, in good spirits, it dealt with the idea of how eras like this are defined and actually come and go, in the flow of time, and how tools like this shape the fields they are used in, and so on.) So I'm not getting any more involved with the inconsequential part of this. If the fact that there are multiple sample players among those plugins is enough for you to go "ergo, the virtual instrument era is over", noted

[tony10000]

Humor me...provide the names of the new instruments that you see that aren't sample players.

Nah, I just wanted to point out the whole premise for the question itself, in the manner you present it and are "backing it up" and even literally going "prove me wrong", is all in all pretty sketchy, and the discussion might be a lot more interesting... if it weren't. (Or if, in good spirits, it dealt with the idea of how eras like this are defined and actually come and go, in the flow of time, and how tools like this shape the fields they are used in, and so on.) So I'm not getting any more involved with the inconsequential part of this. If the fact that there are multiple sample players among those plugins is enough for you to go "ergo, the virtual instrument era is over", noted

The discussion has been pretty lively and interesting with input from some large devs. By the way, I presented my definition of synth eras several pages back. I have been involved in the industry as an insider since the mid 80s so I think I have a valid perspective and others have agreed.

[vurt]

No, the virtual instrument era is not over.

Though I believe we are well past the peak...

again, this depends entirely on your own definition of the peak.
to me, we are just entering the peak, when computers are fast enough, coders have refined audio dsp, and we are finally getting past the idea that software is somehow inferior to hardware in sound.

[tony10000]

"...and we are finally getting past the idea that software is somehow inferior to hardware in sound.

Really? Many engineers and producers would disagree. That is why we still have studios full of rack mount gear and hardware synths.