Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[munchkin]

While they might be using all the latest software now they were making much better music 30 years ago. Is there any correlation?

correlation?

Only facts can corellate. You however just stated your personal opinion - with which I completely disagree b.t.w. ... my opinion is that there will always be a significant number of people who will always claim something was better in the past, no matter what... my suspicion is that you would have said they "were making much better music 30 years ago" regardless of what Brilliant might ever be sounding like.

I have this idea because I am a huge Ultravox fan myself, I love all the classic albums and all the classic fan faves and I think Brilliant is full of great typical classic Ultravox. I think it is one of the best albums they ever made. In other words: I don't think it really sounds any different from what I and other fans always loved them for. So if they still make what they always made, how could it have been "much better 30 years ago"? That doesn't even make sense.

I think they should be put out to pasture really. I mean, them going on about modern software is like watching your dad dancing.

[munchkin]

Fatboy knows his stuff, thanks for the post

He's nearly 50 and still known as fatboy. Thank goodness he dropped that shell suit look awhile back.

[penguinfromdeep]

I kind of agree with da boy. Especially the point about the digital effects / glitchiness etc ... These modern dance styles like complextro or other styles with those annoying effects, lazer, fireworks, etc, gets boring really fast. f**k those effects

god, please stop this stupidity by hitting these guys with flashes or rocks.

No need to hit these guys man, don't take it so seriously. I was just voicing my personal opinion about those horrible styles like complextro. There's no soul in it for me. But a lot of people obviously like it.

[jancivil]

I never worried that particular issue I guess because I don't look to software that is supposed to 'do' subtractive synths like that.

So then why are you entering a discussion that's about softsynths emulating analog? Clearly, many people do look to software to emulate subtractive synths and the degree to which the emulations are successful is important to them.

Digital Synthesis has in fact dramatically expanded the possibilities in sound.

In other news, black has been shown to be darker than white.

Perhaps for you the thread is, or became about that.

I saw the idea 'all this digital is too metallic, and samey' and certainly that's someone that has very little experience with it, with a preference for his own ways and a stick-in-the-mud about that. Then people chimed in and the thread took that turn.

And as far as the OP & Fatboy Slim, maybe that is news. 'All digital is metallic and samey' speaks an ignorance, and a lot of people followed that with their high-fives.

So another thread must accrue to the KVR-Stylee "Analog vs Digital, which is best?" Great.

[Tricky-Loops]

Good is what people want to listen to.

Bad is what nobody wants to listen to.

So you can have the best analog hardware (synthesizer) equipment for $30,000 -- if you make crappy music with it that nobody wants to hear, then it really doesn't sound better than that of the in-the-box-guy with free Oatmeal and Crystal who creates outstanding tunes...just an example...

You can feel yourself better with $30,000 synthesizers, but your music don't care for.

[jens]

I think they should be put out to pasture really. I mean, them going on about modern software is like watching your dad dancing.

Most obviously they are still more youthful than many farts are at 40 or 45...

[jens]

No need to hit these guys man, don't take it so seriously. I was just voicing my personal opinion about those horrible styles like complextro. There's no soul in it for me. But a lot of people obviously like it.

I even agree - it's just that it entirely stupid to blame the tools...

[RunBeerRun]

I prefer software, tons of stuff packed in, no messy cords for my cat to chew on. She follows me everywhere(sleeping behind my head right now)so I need to keep the place neat.

[zerocrossing]

And as far as the OP & Fatboy Slim, maybe that is news. 'All digital is metallic and samey' speaks an ignorance, and a lot of people followed that with their high-fives.

Except for the fact that FBS didn't say anything liked that. He was talking specifically about plug in software instruments which happen to be digital but not all digital instruments are plug ins, obviously. Who knows? Maybe he's tried a couple of bad synthedit creations and based his entire opinion on that. Maybe he hasn't tried a software instrument out in the last 10 years. Who cares what a bunch of people who've probably not made a dime on music think about what a success is doing even if their glory days are behind them. Most of us will never come close.

[zerocrossing]

Good is what people want to listen to.

Bad is what nobody wants to listen to.

So you can have the best analog hardware (synthesizer) equipment for $30,000 -- if you make crappy music with it that nobody wants to hear, then it really doesn't sound better than that of the in-the-box-guy with free Oatmeal and Crystal who creates outstanding tunes...just an example...

You can feel yourself better with $30,000 synthesizers, but your music don't care for.

So, should you head a committee that assigns the proper level of instrument to a musician based on how you perceive their talent?

[trimph1]

I prefer software, tons of stuff packed in, no messy cords for my cat to chew on. She follows me everywhere(sleeping behind my head right now)so I need to keep the place neat.

See?

Right here.

This actually makes perfect sense...my Arp2600 and Minimoog and the other synths I have are, sometimes, covered in fluff. So is my mixer come to that

[trimph1]

I really do not think that it is the tools that make the artist.

Rather, the artist is the one who gives whatever they chose that particular sound or song...

As for taste.

Meh.

Why should we worry about what others may think of their, or our, choice?

[mcnoone]

Good is what people want to listen to.
Bad is what nobody wants to listen to.

Although the rest of your post I agree with. The above, is not true.
Popularity of anything, is no sign of good or bad. It's subjective, and individuals like or dislike things on different levels, and popularity is not something by which we can judge art or anything else by.
There are people with lots of talent in many fields who go unnoticed.
Mostly due to them not following the popular trends in a given field.
What people want to listen to, can be both bad and good, depending on who you are.

[Tricky-Loops]

Good is what people want to listen to.

Bad is what nobody wants to listen to.

So you can have the best analog hardware (synthesizer) equipment for $30,000 -- if you make crappy music with it that nobody wants to hear, then it really doesn't sound better than that of the in-the-box-guy with free Oatmeal and Crystal who creates outstanding tunes...just an example...

You can feel yourself better with $30,000 synthesizers, but your music don't care for.

So, should you head a committee that assigns the proper level of instrument to a musician based on how you perceive their talent?

We need no committee, we only need listeners...

[Tricky-Loops]

Good is what people want to listen to.
Bad is what nobody wants to listen to.

Although the rest of your post I agree with. The above, is not true.
Popularity of anything, is no sign of good or bad. It's subjective, and individuals like or dislike things on different levels, and popularity is not something by which we can judge art or anything else by.
There are people with lots of talent in many fields who go unnoticed.
Mostly due to them not following the popular trends in a given field.
What people want to listen to, can be both bad and good, depending on who you are.

I must admit, the terms "good" and "bad" are a chosen a bit unfortunately...

OTOH, as a musician you want to get heard, because you want to express something. So, admittedly, if you make music that everyone want to listen to, it even could be bad music, but if you make good music that nobody want to listen to, isn't that bad (not to get heard)??

Above all, it's different if you make music (and shows) to earn money (like Norman Cook), or if you perform it as kind of an ("good" meant) art in your spare time.