From: bmaraldo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Commander Brett Maraldo)
Subject: Just an Old Song (was Parting with old synths)
Organization: Unit 36 Research
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:23:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.024200.9487@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes:
>How do you part with an old synth?
>So what do folks out there do who turn over a lot of instruments all the
>time?  Do you redo old sequences or just retire them?  Do you worry about
>losing certain staple sounds?  Or just keep all your old instrumnets, period?
>(I know people like that ;-)

	There are many synthesizers out there.  Many models and within each
model an individual instrument may have its own unique sound.  This is, of
course, more relevant with older analogue equipment.  For example, my vintage
1976 minimoog has a sound unlike any other mini I have heard.  My rev2.0
prophet 5 probably sounds like other rev2.0 P5s, but I have never seen another.
It is more difficult for me to part with these two machines.  I never keep a
synth for sentimental reasons.  I always part with a synth that I under-utilize.
I often part with an instrument when another presents itself.  I go though a
lot instruments this way.  Do you want numbers?  I have been keeping a list
since 1981:  41 synths, 15 drum machines, 18 effects pedals, and 5 guitars.
This may seem exessive but through the aquisition of these instruments I have
gained many things:  a large breadth of knowledge about electronic music
instruments, in general; a positive growth in the maturity and quality of
my studio; but most of all, a very diversified range of music.  
	The trick is not to accumulate too many instruments.  Have, at hand,
only what you will use.  Have number of instruments that will be used equally
with-in the context of a body of written.  A under-utilized
synth should be discarded and the money used to purchase a more useful
piece or toward something else.  The idea is to have as small a palete of
sounds that will be the most useful.  This way, you can spend more energy
on the point of it all: music.
	I rarely post articles to this newsgroup.  Not because I haven't
anything to say, but because what I have to say doesn't seem relevant in a
gear-minded context.  No offence intended; I understand the importance of
gear completely.  But to my original point... music.  For me that is what
it comes down to.  Not the quality of gear one can pack into a room at
any given time but the quality of the music produced.  All it takes is
money to buy gear and make CDs.  It takes artistry to produce timeless
music.  For this, I will often resign myself to only a few instrumental
paletes and work with-in these constraints.  Much like a weight trainer
will utilize the small quality of muscle to lift heavier and heavier objects.
	I have given you the background and now I can answer your question.
I write a song on a given incarnation of my studio.  Soon afterwards, and
with as much objectivity as possible, I master the tune to tape.  After 
that, the computer sequence is irrelevant unless I consider it for live
presentation.  Even then, I have a strong philosophy that keeps me safe:
I only master what I can recreate, at least with some work.  This keeps
my writing on a positive growth curve.	
	If you have a synth collecting dust you might as well part with
it and use the gains for something that will be more useful to you.  But
always strive to use equally every instrument you have - your music can
only gain from this.

Brett Maraldo
Plexus Productions
-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU