lodger Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I wanted to share an idea and see if anyone else had the same experience as a musician, i've worked on a lot of different projects using a wide variety of tools. However, something that always strikes me is that working with the most rudimentry tools produces some of the most interesting, engaging, and satisfying results, Over the last few weeks, i've locked myself into using only cheap old casios and one old common-as-dirt yamaha synth and am floored at how well my music has turned out, likewise the extent that i've been able to focus on my work. A part of me attributes this to the fact that you are limited to the extent that you can get distracted in tweaking your sounds...it really makes you rely more on composition to make things sound good. In this day and age where multi gigabyte sound libraries can give you false positives that you sound better than you do, the rugged, grainy, and imperfect sounds of cheap gear are often the most truthful and accurate tools you can hope to have. my opinion, anyway 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I totally agree. And it's also a similar philosophy with regards to a lot of bands sounding better 'live' than they do on a recording. When playing live, many other random variables come into play, and it is these imperfections that can add to the character of the overall sound. Totally electronic music maybe less so as much is sequenced and/ or relies on perfect synchronisation to give that machine like feel. Furthermore, some random elements have been the trigger for inspiring song writing and arrangements when bands have been in a recording studio. I was recently reading about the Human League recording 'Don't you want me', and in the chorus there is this underlying rhythmic sequence that comes in on an off beat. This was discovered when the sequencer malfunctioned and brought that particular sequence in late: “On ‘Don’t You Want Me’, there’s a moving line under the chorus that sounds like a low, guitar-y type of synth sound, programmed on a Roland 800”, explains Martin Rushent. “That came about because the computer screwed up and played the line a half-beat out of time. The moment we heard it, Jo [Callis] and I went, ‘Wow, that’s amazing! What the hell has happened?’ So the next time around I played it as originally intended and said, ‘Shit, I think we’ve lost it, Jo.’ Then he did it again and I said, ‘Oh, I’ve worked it out, it’s half a beat late. So what we need to do is move it all back half a beat, and that’s it.’ That’s what occasionally happens in the studio — you hear something and think, ‘That sounds really good. I never would have thought of that.’” https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/classictracks_0710.htm It's also why many older analogue synths sound so rich and full compared with modern variants. Old VCO analogue synths could be temperamental, especially those with two or more oscillators, as each oscillator could 'drift' and go out of tune depending on humidity, temperature and whether the rest of the circuits were behaving or not. This would give a random element to the sound, and we all know how good a dual oscillator synth can sound if you slightly detune one oscillator (we can do this on purpose with some Casio synths, from CZ's to XW's!) I have heard that Dave Smith Instruments actually programmed in a feature called 'Oscillator Slop' to try and replicate this random element on their modern analogue synths. And talking of the Human League, let's not forget that the song 'Get Carter' on 'Dare' was recorded on nothing more than a Casio VL1, and Trio's 'Da da da' used nothing more than a drummer, a bass player, a singer and a VL1 to create their massive world-wide hit. It's very much a case that it's not just the instrument that matters but also the person behind it, though the two can very much inspire and compliment each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Display Name Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 One of my favorite examples of "not so perfect sounds" put to great use is "Man on the Corner"... Nothing special about any of these sounds, but the all put together on that song.. sounds great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlenK Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Lodger is wise.I think there are two related points here worth discussing.First, there can be magic in a "less than perfect" sound. What is perfect anyway? I think by "perfect" we are implying in this context "precise" or "clinical." Sometimes that is just what you want but other times you want the "warmth" provided by randomness and human variability. It's why acoustic instruments are so inherently interesting to our ears. It's also part of the charm of vintage analog synthesizers (although anyone who has ever had to deal with a Minimoog going out of tune on stage would probably use a different word).Second, there is the idea that having or imposing constraints (e.g., the number or type of instruments you use) can actually increase your creativity. That's anti-intuitive but there are plenty of examples in music and in the wider world. And I think it is one of the meanings behind the phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention." If you need or want to do something and you don't have the tools around you to do it, you'll invent (create) some other way to do it with the tools you have. I have my own example that illustrates both of these points. The electronic music pioneer that had the most effect on me was Larry Fast (Synergy) and the album of his that remains my favorite to this day is his first: Electronic Realizations for Rock Orchestra (1975). (BTW, it was Fast's label at the time, Passport, that chose that name. I'm sure on his own he would have come up with something catchier.) My favorite track on that album is Relay Breakdown. I can't tell you why it is my favorite, it just is. As it turns out Fast released another version of that track many years later on an album called Reconstructed Artifacts (2003). The original was made primarily using analog synthesizers (specifically a Minimoog and an Oberheim Expander module) recorded part for part on multi-track tape. This was long before MIDI. The new version was made using digital synthesizers (including a Kurzweil K2000) and a lot of MIDI sequencing. The differences between the two versions are striking. Bear in mind that these were done by the same artist and that the second version was not intended to be a "re-imagining" of the piece but simply a close recreation in the digital realm. As Fast states here,"I did my best to adhere to the general feel of the original recordings of each piece and not go nuts with a complete re-arrangement." If this were my composition (in my dreams!) I would be proud of either version but my overwhelming preference is for the original, which just sounds better to my ears even though the mix has a muddier sound overall. It's not because I am an anti-digital lover of all things analog. I'm not. The main reason, I think, is because of the "human-ness" of Fast's playing in the original. There's just something about the timing that feels right. The "reconstructed" version, in contrast, is far more "metronomic." You can listen to the original here. I can't provide a link to the full track of the new version but you can listen to parts of it here and here.Electronic Realizations for Rock Orchestra also illustrates the second point. Fast used only TWO monophonic synthesizers (plus a little bit of Mellotron). He didn't have the aid of a computer or MIDI sequencing (although he did use an Oberheim DS-2 digital sequencer). Yet he made an entire album of highly original music (except for one track composed by someone else) that is nearly orchestral in its complexity. You can read about it here and read the list of equipment he used from the album's back cover here.The last album Fast released, called Metropolitan Suite (1987), used MIDI sequencing and a lot more synthesizers. It too sounded orchestral but although compositionally it is IMO a superior work it isn't head and shoulders better than his first album. All of that extra equipment did NOT seem to make a huge difference in his creativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Fasthttp://innerviews.org/inner/fast.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodger Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 The Other part of this that may be significant is that cheap gear restricts your aesthetic decisions. In a way it's sort of like language, where you start off being able to make any sound but it's not until you limit the number of sound you can make that you can communicate effectively. I'm glad other people appreciated this; a side thought is that it would be neat to make a compilation album using crude instruments as a source. Anyone game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The Other part of this that may be significant is that cheap gear restricts your aesthetic decisions. In a way it's sort of like language, where you start off being able to make any sound but it's not until you limit the number of sound you can make that you can communicate effectively.I'm glad other people appreciated this; a side thought is that it would be neat to make a compilation album using crude instruments as a source. Anyone game? You might be interested in this compilation as many songs were written using crude and basic electronic instruments: https://bedroomcassettemasters.bandcamp.com/album/bedroom-cassette-masters-1980-89-volume-four 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Saucier Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 OK. Chas. You can compete with this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokeyman123 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Just my 2 cents worth. My first "synth" was a Sequential Circuits Pro One which was dual-oscillator analog monophonic. I had more fun layering recorded tracks one line at a time with that thing, with it's horrible mis-triggering keyboard, crude arpeggiator, noisy pots and other assorted twisted musical devices (these oscillators constantly drifted in an out of sync).A friends nephew tours all over the country with usually just him and a drummer with an old B-3, an old Wurlitzer tine piano and an assortment of toy keyboards casio included and a Mattel "Speak and Spell" modded. He seems pretty popular. Not for a cheap plug (he doesn't need my help) look for simply "Marco" on Youtube. He seems to be enjoying himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodger Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 @ chas- that's a really cool compilation. thanks for the heads up on that! i'll check the other links as soon as i get a chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.