From: metlay@PHYAST.PITT.EDU (metlay)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Parting with old synths
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:16:56 GMT


Neil Weinstock asks:

>How do you part with an old synth?

Actually, I get better results if I use a comb. |-> (Ba DUMP bump!)

>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 ;-)

Hmm. In simplest terms, I redo my old material with my new
instruments, because my "staple" sounds are sound TYPES rather than
specific timbres in general. 

That may sound bizarre coming from someone who specializes in collecting
instruments that do noises that are unique, but in general those noises
are one-off useful-- after you've used one effectively, you chuck it
so as not to jade your audience. I have a zillion weird multi-modulated
sound effects for the Xpander, vector bizarro patches for the VS, and
so on. But they sit and wait for their "chance," and when they've been
used I usually get rid of them. (I'm only just now getting into patch
archival, after seven years in the MIDI arena.)

When I write a song, it's just that: a song. It could be performed by
any orchestration of instruments, by and large. I find that if a melody
is strong and catchy, it can translate very well to a number of different 
timbres. I often "redo" old songs from my first album, and find that I
can get a new, fresh perspective on them when I give whole new timbres to
the different voicings. (And if I'm desperate to save a particular old
sound, I still have my Xpander, which was my only synth for most of the
album.)

I have never been of the opinion that a song requires a rigid timbre 
selection. I also hate cliched sound effects. So if you ever hear me
play a song from an old tape of mine live, you should know the melody
because you'll never recognize the timbres.

Brett Maraldo replies to Neil:

>	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.

Nick Rothwell elaborates:

>Simplicity, yes; a small number of (powerful)
>instruments and a simple network. But it's not the small pallette of
>sounds that characterises the simplicity; it's the small, manageable
>set of user interfaces and the discipline, integration and working
>method you can obtain by exploring each machine properly.

These ideas go hand in hand with what I said. The tools should be convenient
for how one works, but the ideas are there because it's YOUR head doing the
thinking. (This is why I am eager to try the WS: it seems to fit directly 
into my own personal work paradigm.)

Brett and Nick then say:

>>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.	

>Hmm. How?

By assuring that a piece can stand on its own with no reliance on cute 
technical tricks or "signature" noises. I work the way Brett does: when
a piece is done, it's DONE. On tape and forget about it. If it's not 
quite perfect, shrug and write another, and rework it in the live sets.

My definition of "recreate" here would be an arrangement and a general
feel of a song. I have only once made an attempt to exactly reproduce
a timbre for a remix of a song, and in my opinion it damaged the overall
quality of the final result because I had my eyes and ears on a perfect
reproduction rather than on what would work in the existing arrangement.
That sort of lesson isn't easily forgotten!

--
dr. michael metlay          \ My latest rule of thumb for buying synths is
atomic city                  \ deceptively simple: I will never buy a new
                              \ (post-MIDI) synth that doesn't have a full
metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu \ graphic LCD display on board. Think about it!

Newsgroups: rec.music.synth