Page 6 of 7

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:12 am
by Stab Frenzy
DIGITAL SCREAMS wrote:The thing people have to realise is that back in the day....all our favourite artists (inc. Numan) were utilising synths which were new-ish or cutting edge at the time. It was a stark contrast both musically and technically from what had gone before. Very few of these artists would use the old synths now...except for some nostalgic or practical reason.


Very good point, the sounds that we think of as retro now were all cutting-edge at one point.
DIGITAL SCREAMS wrote:Like many of you, I have been on a personal quest over the last 12 years to acquire and use classic synths...partly because thats what my favourite bands used. If im honest, I think I wanted to capture the spirit of music during a happier time of my life. If I really wanted to embrace the excitement of creating new music then perhaps I should be using the 'synths of today'. Its a hard choice to make - im torn between nostalgia and the belief older synths sound nicer...and the feeling of wanting to create something new using current technology. Maybe some others here feel the same way?
All the synths and recording gear I use was available new in the last five years, except for my E1010 delay. The thing with equipment available today is that it has been influenced by everything that's come before, so new modular equipment can cover the sounds of vintage monosynths etc. There are very few sounds that can only be obtained by buying a vintage piece of gear, and IMO they're the vintage polysynth sounds although the SE stuff and SunSyn do a very good job of covering them. The newer stuff has the bonus of being much more flexible though, for example the Evolvers can cover all the sounds of an ESQ-1 and then extend them in ways that the ESQ is just not capable of.

The only real advantage old stuff has is that it's cheaper because designing and manufacturing new things is always inherently more expensive than finding things second-hand, unless demand for the old things grossly exceeds supply. There is also nostalgia and UI, although nostalgia isn't a real advantage as it exists in the mind of the user and midi means that almost every UI con be completely customised now, at a price.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:44 am
by ninja6485
Stab Frenzy wrote:
DIGITAL SCREAMS wrote:The thing people have to realise is that back in the day....all our favourite artists (inc. Numan) were utilising synths which were new-ish or cutting edge at the time. It was a stark contrast both musically and technically from what had gone before. Very few of these artists would use the old synths now...except for some nostalgic or practical reason.


Very good point, the sounds that we think of as retro now were all cutting-edge at one point.
DIGITAL SCREAMS wrote:Like many of you, I have been on a personal quest over the last 12 years to acquire and use classic synths...partly because thats what my favourite bands used. If im honest, I think I wanted to capture the spirit of music during a happier time of my life. If I really wanted to embrace the excitement of creating new music then perhaps I should be using the 'synths of today'. Its a hard choice to make - im torn between nostalgia and the belief older synths sound nicer...and the feeling of wanting to create something new using current technology. Maybe some others here feel the same way?
All the synths and recording gear I use was available new in the last five years, except for my E1010 delay. The thing with equipment available today is that it has been influenced by everything that's come before, so new modular equipment can cover the sounds of vintage monosynths etc. There are very few sounds that can only be obtained by buying a vintage piece of gear, and IMO they're the vintage polysynth sounds although the SE stuff and SunSyn do a very good job of covering them. The newer stuff has the bonus of being much more flexible though, for example the Evolvers can cover all the sounds of an ESQ-1 and then extend them in ways that the ESQ is just not capable of.

The only real advantage old stuff has is that it's cheaper because designing and manufacturing new things is always inherently more expensive than finding things second-hand, unless demand for the old things grossly exceeds supply. There is also nostalgia and UI, although nostalgia isn't a real advantage as it exists in the mind of the user and midi means that almost every UI con be completely customised now, at a price.
I don't feel like that really tells the whole story. You have to take each piece of gear for what it is. It's true that there's excellent new gear and excellent old gear. There's no need to be selective based on age, but at the same time you lose a lot of what makes the instruments valuable and enjoyable by abstracting away to broad objective qualities and then chalking the rest up to nostalgia & UI. In the situation Gary Numan is in, where you want to produce some form of a certain type of sound live as easily as possible, especially if your a touring musician. You then obviously have different priorities where it makes sense to abstract away qualities and just reproduce them as efficiently as possible. I'd do the same thing, and I wouldn't bring my odyssey! ;)

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:47 am
by Stab Frenzy
What else is there that doesn't fit into the categories "objective qualities, nostalgia (subjective) and UI (a mixture of objective and subjective)"? I'm not saying that everyone needs to use new gear because it's better or something, I'm just saying that there are no lost arts that mean the good things about old gear are gone forever.

I'm a touring musician too, and I use a modular system live. Playing live's not just about easy, sometimes doing things the hardest way possible works the best. The easiest way to 'produce a certain type of sound live' is by playing to a backing track, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to play live. I know of a lot of bands who do play to backing tracks because their audience want to hear the songs like they sound on the album, but I also know a lot of bands who go to great lengths to play electronic parts live so they sound exactly like they do on the album. You can't make a blanket judgement and say one is better than the other, each approach has its merits and the right one to go with mostly depends on what your audience want to see.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:42 pm
by Kilroy
Or better yet, play the songs differently --perhaps even completely different-- than the studio cut. If I want to hear the record, I'll put on the record. I always feel a little cheated when I go to a show and it sounds exactly like the album. I haver created hundreds of click tracks for bands and I can pick them out of a mix instantly. When I hear them, I start getting suspicious about things like backing vocals (are they on track too? 'Cause they sure sound perfect and pitch corrected to me!).

My favorite shows are the ones that stand alone as discrete and unique performances -- unique arrangements of songs, unique playlists, etc. I realize that in the age of click tracks, lighting cues, video support, and so forth, this gets less practical as the shows get bigger, but dammit, make it unique. I don't even care if it is not as polished. Go ahead and take some risks and and if you make some mistakes, we'll have a laugh together. It shouldn't be like every other show. This is *my* show.
Stab Frenzy wrote:What else is there that doesn't fit into the categories "objective qualities, nostalgia (subjective) and UI (a mixture of objective and subjective)"? I'm not saying that everyone needs to use new gear because it's better or something, I'm just saying that there are no lost arts that mean the good things about old gear are gone forever.

I'm a touring musician too, and I use a modular system live. Playing live's not just about easy, sometimes doing things the hardest way possible works the best. The easiest way to 'produce a certain type of sound live' is by playing to a backing track, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to play live. I know of a lot of bands who do play to backing tracks because their audience want to hear the songs like they sound on the album, but I also know a lot of bands who go to great lengths to play electronic parts live so they sound exactly like they do on the album. You can't make a blanket judgement and say one is better than the other, each approach has its merits and the right one to go with mostly depends on what your audience want to see.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:05 am
by Automatic Gainsay
Ned Bouhalassa wrote:Gary Numan led to Trent Reznor. That is truly magical and wonderful, in my world.
Gary Numan led to Marc Doty, too... which is sweet sweet irony.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:23 am
by tallowwaters
...and Marc Doty leads to...

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 6:03 am
by ninja6485
Stab Frenzy wrote:What else is there that doesn't fit into the categories "objective qualities, nostalgia (subjective) and UI (a mixture of objective and subjective)"? I'm not saying that everyone needs to use new gear because it's better or something, I'm just saying that there are no lost arts that mean the good things about old gear are gone forever.

I'm a touring musician too, and I use a modular system live. Playing live's not just about easy, sometimes doing things the hardest way possible works the best. The easiest way to 'produce a certain type of sound live' is by playing to a backing track, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to play live. I know of a lot of bands who do play to backing tracks because their audience want to hear the songs like they sound on the album, but I also know a lot of bands who go to great lengths to play electronic parts live so they sound exactly like they do on the album. You can't make a blanket judgement and say one is better than the other, each approach has its merits and the right one to go with mostly depends on what your audience want to see.
~(nostalgia = subjective)
Stab Frenzy wrote:I'm a touring musician too, and I use a modular system live. Playing live's not just about easy, sometimes doing things the hardest way possible works the best.
Obviously, seeing as that follows from my point.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 5:16 am
by Automatic Gainsay
tallowwaters wrote:...and Marc Doty leads to...


Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 8:41 am
by tekkentool
tallowwaters wrote:...and Marc Doty leads to...
Image

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:32 am
by phesago
tekkentool wrote:
tallowwaters wrote:...and Marc Doty leads to...
Image
:lol:

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:11 am
by polar69
Saying Gary Numan invented electronic music is a bit like saying Eric Clapton invented the blues.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:56 pm
by Stab Frenzy
But nobody said Gary Numan invented electronic music did they? Just that he was influential, which is true.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:14 pm
by bochelli
Stab Frenzy wrote:But nobody said Gary Numan invented electronic music did they? Just that he was influential, which is true.
Take a look on the inner sleeve of 1980 Telekon Album and view the synthesisers used , thank you mr numan.

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:47 am
by Stab Frenzy
bochelli wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote:But nobody said Gary Numan invented electronic music did they? Just that he was influential, which is true.
Take a look on the inner sleeve of 1980 Telekon Album and view the synthesisers used , thank you mr numan.
I don't have a copy of that album, could you be a bit more clear about what you're trying to say?

Re: G. Numan drops wise words - old vs new - blahblah

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:58 pm
by Automatic Gainsay
Stab Frenzy wrote:But nobody said Gary Numan invented electronic music did they? Just that he was influential, which is true.
I don't think I've seen anyone specifically state that, but a lot of people in the present give him credit for that which he is not responsible for.
As for influence: maybe. One might say "I was a big fan of Numan, and he influenced me." But Numan was "influenced" by people whom he sounds like, too. So, to suggest that one specific person "influenced" you is to, in some ways, indicate that what that one person did was unique, and it caused you to do something similar.
I felt that I was "influenced" by Numan when I was young, but as an adult, I recognize that some factors that I thought were Numan were actually other artists or movements that Numan was emulating.
So, what defines "influence?" Is it the person you got the sound from, or the person/people/movement that THAT person got the sound from? The history and progression of music, even within specific genres and small timeframes is insanely complex... which is also why I complain about internet historical portrayals which are simply someone connecting dots based upon who said they liked whom.
This is why "inspired" is a more applicable term.

P.S. I was inspired by Gary Numan, too. :)