I bought too many soft synths

[VOODOO U]

But Wires are not necessarily Cables...

f**k it all and just bluetooth the shit out of that modular monster.

[Jac459]

But Wires are not necessarily Cables...

f**k it all and just bluetooth the shit out of that modular monster.

"to bluetooth the shit out of something"

I like the expression. I plan to use it more...

[VOODOO U]

But Wires are not necessarily Cables...

f**k it all and just bluetooth the shit out of that modular monster.

"to bluetooth the shit out of something"

I like the expression. I plan to use it more...

Ill get the licensing contracts sent to you asap.

[liquidsound]

But Wires are not necessarily Cables...

f**k it all and just bluetooth the shit out of that modular monster.

No one has so many Blueteeth!

[BONES]

I provided some examples.

Yes, and I pointed out that they were poor examples, largely irrelevant to anything.

and to no-one's surprise, you moved the goalposts to "relevant restrictions". which in your solipsistic existence basically means anything you do/don't want.

I'd have thought anyone with even half a f**king brain would understand that examples need to be relevant to have any value in a discussion. I obviously badly over-estimated your intelligence. My bad.

In the same way that Niky Lauda and his McLaren-TAG would be totally able to win the 2024 world F1 tournament like he did in 1984, JM Jarre, Vangelis or Kraftwerk would have exactly the same success today than 40 years ago.

I didn't realise it was a race, that winning mattered. JM Jarre still makes music and undoubtedly is still doing much better than anyone on this f**king forum. Kraftwerk still pack concert venues, a much bigger audience than anyone on this f**king forum can pull. You want to focus on the tools but the tools really don't matter. Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference. It's ideas that make a difference, musical ideas. For some reason, a lot of you seem to think that you can put lipstick on a pig and everyone will fall in love with it. That's not how it works.

I've listened to all the demo clips in your signature links and there is nothing there you couldn't have done 40 years ago on hardware. Nothing. You might have needed a studio to put it all together back then but if you had a couple of subtractive synths, a DX-7 and/or a sampler, you could have done all that.

[Jac459]

I provided some examples.

Yes, and I pointed out that they were poor examples, largely irrelevant to anything.

and to no-one's surprise, you moved the goalposts to "relevant restrictions". which in your solipsistic existence basically means anything you do/don't want.

I'd have thought anyone with even half a f**king brain would understand that examples need to be relevant to have any value in a discussion. I obviously badly over-estimated your intelligence. My bad.

In the same way that Niky Lauda and his McLaren-TAG would be totally able to win the 2024 world F1 tournament like he did in 1984, JM Jarre, Vangelis or Kraftwerk would have exactly the same success today than 40 years ago.

I didn't realise it was a race, that winning mattered. JM Jarre still makes music and undoubtedly is still doing much better than anyone on this f**king forum. Kraftwerk still pack concert venues, a much bigger audience than anyone on this f**king forum can pull. You want to focus on the tools but the tools really don't matter. Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference. It's ideas that make a difference, musical ideas. For some reason, a lot of you seem to think that you can put lipstick on a pig and everyone will fall in love with it. That's not how it works.

I've listened to all the demo clips in your signature links and there is nothing there you couldn't have done 40 years ago on hardware. Nothing. You might have needed a studio to put it all together back then but if you had a couple of subtractive synths, a DX-7 and/or a sampler, you could have done all that.

If you can't see the difference between technologies of synths it is your own issue and don't concern me.
I can guarantee you that if you do a blind test to KVR members and shows presets of subtractive versus granular synths, they will instantly recognise.
To some extent with FM you could more of less mimic some sounds of wavetable synthesis but here again it is pretty easy to have wavetable sounds unmatchable for FM.

JM Jarre albums like Oxygen are still true masterpiece, but there is absolutely no doubt that oxygen would have sounded totally differently if made with the capacity of today.
Unlike you, Jean-Michel Jarre is an eager innovation lover who is always going to try new synthesis approach and try to push boundaries.

He is at the opposite of the spectrum compare to you. You are mostly doing EBM (electronic body music) which is a genre rooted in the 80s. For sure you don't need modern synthesis!

To be clear, it isn't a critic, you can do wonderful tracks in EBM.
And there is a ton of talents musician who don't care about synthesis. On that I agree, and there is no problem with that.
For that matter, you could even produce Charleston today and make awesome musics.

What is beyond me is that you are not able to understand that not everybody has the same use case than you.

[machinesworking]

You want to focus on the tools but the tools really don't matter. Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference. It's ideas that make a difference, musical ideas. For some reason, a lot of you seem to think that you can put lipstick on a pig and everyone will fall in love with it. That's not how it works.

I have no dog in this convoluted argument you're having here, but Depeche Mode pretty famously had a member whose job besides playing synth in the band was to program all the sounds. I think it's not that unusual for successful bands to worry about that in house.

Yes, song ideas are important, but I can't ignore the importance of good synth sounds in electronic music in general.

[machinesworking]

What is beyond me is that you are not able to understand that not everybody has the same use case than you.

I've kicked water up that hill. Bones can't compute that idea, it's a binary equation for him and you'll just get pissed and not enjoy anything he contributes ever if you hit your head against that wall.

[gaggle of hermits]

What is beyond me is that you are not able to understand that not everybody has the same use case than you.

Bones doesn’t believe you exist. In bonesworld there is only bones. all other voices are intrusive thoughts from his imagination.

[VOODOO U]

You want to focus on the tools but the tools really don't matter.

Right. Which is why Metallica plays banjos.

Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference.

Right. Patching a synth doesn't make a difference. Vangelis could've scored Blade Runner with a moog sound and it would've been just as impactful.
And what successful artists pay others to patch their synths sounds? Janet Jackson?

It's ideas that make a difference, musical ideas.

Ideas can come with sound experimentation and that includes patching synths.

[Uncle E]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_RvsXu5Y0

[Jac459]

What is beyond me is that you are not able to understand that not everybody has the same use case than you.

I've kicked water up that hill. Bones can't compute that idea, it's a binary equation for him and you'll just get pissed and not enjoy anything he contributes ever if you hit your head against that wall.

Yes you are 100% true... Actually I didn't really want to answer because I consider that:
1 - Bones can't process new info and thus can't be convinced.
2 - Other people already agree with the point I am trying to defend...

But I did... Stupid me.

[machinesworking]

Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference.

Right. Patching a synth doesn't make a difference. Vangelis could've scored Blade Runner with a moog sound and it would've been just as impactful.
And what successful artists pay others to patch their synths sounds? Janet Jackson?

Huge hole in this thought, Vangelis used the factory patches on the Yamaha CS-80 almost exclusively for Blade Runner. Obviously the CS-80 is an amazing synth, but you can't really argue that he spent any time at all on programming, or that it's not the ideas he had on playing the patches VS his deep knowledge of programming the CS-80.

[Jac459]

Successful artists pay other people to patch synths for them because they understand that it's trivial shit that, ultimately, won't make a difference.

Right. Patching a synth doesn't make a difference. Vangelis could've scored Blade Runner with a moog sound and it would've been just as impactful.
And what successful artists pay others to patch their synths sounds? Janet Jackson?

Huge hole in this thought, Vangelis used the factory patches on the Yamaha CS-80 almost exclusively for Blade Runner. Obviously the CS-80 is an amazing synth, but you can't really argue that he spent any time at all on programming, or that it's not the ideas he had on playing the patches VS his deep knowledge of programming the CS-80.

When I brought Vangelis and Jarre in this discussion it was more in reference to the type of sounds.
Overall, the expressivity (we are about to talk about the dear aftertouch hehe) is only on the volume and opening of the filters for most of the sounds. Maybe rarely on the FM amount but that's it.
Modern music, thanks to the technological progress have much more means to make a sound evolve, through going to a wavetable, applying realtime spectral filters (there are 100 of different types) and so on and so forth (don't get me started on what Zebralette 3 is bringing into the table).
The transformation of sound is something modern genre use and abuse (I am looking at you Dubstep ). And it was just not existing before.

[gaggle of hermits]

guys, you've fallen down the bones rabbit-hole here. who does the patches wasn't at issue to begin with, this is just where our angry ebm friend has redirected things – I guess to overcome some insecurity about programming synths that are "too complicated" as it had sod all to do with the original source of the argument, which was whether some restrictions that tend to be inherent to the cost tradeoffs of analogue synths made it a good choice for a general-purpose template for a synth today.

however, in constructing this particular line of argument you have to ignore the fact that ear candy has been a defining element of many of the most popular tunes. can you get the phased gong at the start of Michael Jackson's beat it (y'know the bit that everyone recognises) using a Jupiter 6? given that it's 2-op fm on an additive waveform it doesn't seem remotely likely though you can kinda approximate the sweep with the x-mod and don't mind the sideband artifacts.

the fact the sound that they used on the album came from a sampler lp for the synclavier is irrelevant because someone programmed it at some point. what is relevant is that the synclavier operates in a different sonic area to the j6 and people like ear candy in their records.

also jarre etc were only too keen to use these kinds of tools. the fairlight was a major feature of his third charting album.

oh sh*t, now I've fallen further down the hole.