Dubstepforum.com

Really though, I bet that shit will be expense. Why would I buy a neutered version of a PC grafted to an MPC Ren/MPD when I can just tote a laptop that's already very compact and have all the other benefits that come along with it? Yeah yeah, having everything in one box is so chique but is it really worth it to sacrifice the power and flexibility of a modular controller set up? If you really want to put horseblinders on, just maximize your software and pretend like it's an XXXXL screen for your "MPC". Most people already have computers so it's kind of odd to expect them to shell out more money on a redundant feature for the sake of having it all in one unit. That said, it is pretty cool.

wub wrote:

nowaysj wrote:If anyone has any info on the poly 61, sees any used in the states, please let me know.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KORG-poly-61-an ... 5afe6f6975

Synths are one of the few things I'd considered buying internationally from Japan, always get the impression they treat them with a certain amount of reverence.

I own a Poly 800 - same essential circuitry for the most part, except the 61 allows a filter on each voice and the 800 has a single filter for all voices - and have to say that while I do like it, it's not for everyone. The interface leaves something to be desired; it tends to be one of those synths you just start randomly changing modulation params on to get a sound because it doesn't appear to have an 'internal logic' of its own like other synths do. You also spend a lot of time scrolling through presets going "Oh wow, that's the synth they used on that one terrible 80's dance tune!"

IMHO a Juno offers more sonically, but that's just me.

DW8000's also rate highly and are available cheapish.

SunkLo wrote:Really though, I bet that shit will be expense. Why would I buy a neutered version of a PC grafted to an MPC Ren/MPD when I can just tote a laptop that's already very compact and have all the other benefits that come along with it? Yeah yeah, having everything in one box is so chique but is it really worth it to sacrifice the power and flexibility of a modular controller set up? If you really want to put horseblinders on, just maximize your software and pretend like it's an XXXXL screen for your "MPC". Most people already have computers so it's kind of odd to expect them to shell out more money on a redundant feature for the sake of having it all in one unit. That said, it is pretty cool.

It is more than chique. When you figure out how to make music, maybe then you dictate what is useful in making music.


And just a heads up, black people don't have computers. Haven't you noticed the strange absence of black people on the internet? If there's two things I've learned, black people don't eat donuts, and don't have computers.

nowaysj wrote:Oh shit. The future of music is so fucking bright. So glad that tech has finally trickled down to our sector.

Lets just hope they dont try to rinse us dry of all our money.

No they will, but tech is democratic, there'll be some czech's around the corner to sell us some arduino based goodness on the cheap.

I don't know why everyone thinks the secret to making amazing music is using some shitty little lofi box that has 3 options. Hardware becomes somewhat of a perversion and usually it's reflected in the musical output. I could understand if I was trying to remake the Scarface soundtrack or something but I'd like to create music that doesn't sound like preset faffery on some outdated yet revered piece of gear. The focus shifts more to the hardware than the music, which ends up sounding like some masturbatory experiment. That's great if you just want to have fun fiddling with some knobs but I don't think it's the grail of producing sonic gold like it's portrayed to be.


Also, World Star Hip Hop.

SunkLo wrote:I don't know why everyone thinks the secret to making amazing music is using some shitty little lofi box that has 3 options.

With that giant brain, and questing heart of yours you should try to figure this out. There could be something very important for you, and your musical difficulties in there.

SunkLo wrote:Hardware becomes somewhat of a perversion and usually it's reflected in the musical output.

This is a theoretical assertion, as are many of your assertions. A lot of music that I like has a character that is derived from the devices that were used in making the music. It is not my basis for liking the music, but it is one of the things I like about that music. Just the sound and texture of it.

SunkLo wrote:That's great if you just want to have fun fiddling with some knobs but I don't think it's the grail of producing sonic gold like it's portrayed to be.

Take the Poly 61 for example, for the past few years, I've been hearing these sounds from around the sound world, and I'm like, oh I really like that sound, that is what I've been trying to make. And I just figured out that those sounds have been coming from the 61. My desire now to acquire the 61 is not to have knobs to fiddle (check the pictures, ) but I want that sound. And the synth is cheap, ie acquirable, it is within my reach. It is NOT a revered piece of musical history. I'm not trying to make musical gold, nor should you be. I'm trying to make musical antimony. Make what you want to, make what interests you, in a manner you like working - that is it, as simple as it is. It doesn't have to out class every other prior recording, it just has to be you.

Can you be that simple?

SunkLo wrote:Also, World Star Hip Hop.

Touché mutherfucker.

Is buying gear for its limitations and then recreating some previously made sound really the best way to get there though? Why not just enforce your own limits? If you're trying to get a piece of something that already exists, why not just sample it? Take a hoover for instance. That sound was rinsed to death and it was just a synth patch. If you're going to be derivative enough to put a hoover in your track you might as well sample it instead of actually buying the synth to get your own "authentic" copy. I think a lot of people get caught up in "Omg this synth has that sound, it's so amazing!" and then their tracks are just like a single note acid bassline being looped over and over. They get starstruck by the hardware and all its quirks instead of just using it as a tool. I can dig stuff having its own vibe but I think if you removed the layer of hardware lust, people wouldn't be nearly as enamored with their sounds. "Oh you mean this came from a softsynth? Hmm, yeah it sounds kind of stale doesn't it..."

Hardware can certainly be a workflow enhancer, look at something like the Push. It's super integrated with your software and gives you hands on control of a lot of shit at once. But how can some old 80s keyboard with a billion menus to dive through be a workflow improver? It might add to the mystique of using this idiosyncratic old box but I don't think it's helping you be more productive.

SunkLo wrote:Is buying gear for its limitations and then recreating some previously made sound really the best way to get there though? Why not just enforce your own limits?

Missing it. Not looking at the poly 61 for its limits, I am looking at it for the types of sounds that it makes. You go set your own limits.

SunkLo wrote: If you're trying to get a piece of something that already exists, why not just sample it? Take a hoover for instance. That sound was rinsed to death and it was just a synth patch. If you're going to be derivative enough to put a hoover in your track you might as well sample it instead of actually buying the synth to get your own "authentic" copy.

Still missing it. I'm not trying to get one sound. And I'm not genuflecting in front of a fabled instrument because that is what some legendary producer used 30 years ago. You are creating this theoretical hoover hunting person, why? Who is that, who does it apply to? It is imaginary, dude. It is not at issue here. You've completely missed something that is pretty important, and I think you're going to keep missing it until you change your heart from a stance of justification to one of understanding.

SunkLo wrote:I think a lot of people get caught up in "Omg this synth has that sound, it's so amazing!" and then their tracks are just like a single note acid bassline being looped over and over.

Again you've got it wrong, and backwards here. I don't make tracks with single note acid baselines, and don't know many people that do. And again, that is not at issue here. But if I was into looping some imaginary one note acid bassline for an hour, fuckit, that's what I like, that is what I'm going to do.

SunkLo wrote:They get starstruck by the hardware and all its quirks instead of just using it as a tool. I can dig stuff having its own vibe but I think if you removed the layer of hardware lust, people wouldn't be nearly as enamored with their sounds. "Oh you mean this came from a softsynth? Hmm, yeah it sounds kind of stale doesn't it..."

I use softsynths all the time. But I've never achieved this flavor of sound from any combination of softsynth and vst fx. Even then, I've got a hardware synth that does sound a little better than software, but I don't use it much because of the minor amount of hassle in using the hardware. I may use it in an all hardware setup, that is unfortunately only theoretical, as it requires too much capital at this time (ie I need a mixer). I really don't care where a sound came from, so long as I like the sound, and again, take the poly 61 for example, I really don't want to work with those buttons, but am willing to for that sound.

SunkLo wrote:Hardware can certainly be a workflow enhancer, look at something like the Push. It's super integrated with your software and gives you hands on control of a lot of shit at once. But how can some old 80s keyboard with a billion menus to dive through be a workflow improver? It might add to the mystique of using this idiosyncratic old box but I don't think it's helping you be more productive.

I'm not looking to enhance my workflow. If I was, I'd be working with a touchscreen daw. I don't need to become more productive. I'm okay with my level of productivity. I just want that sound, despite the hit (monitarily, spacially, workflowilly, marriagely) I'm going to take. I think you will find a lot of people (like real actual people, not imaginary people who play one note acid basslines, and maybe even you) fail in their workflow from a lack of inspiration, not from a lack of options. Finding what moves you, what motivates you, what inspires you is what it means to be an artist. It is what your work is about.

It is really shitty, and more that shitty, just stupid, to find an artist that is burning with passion about their work, and be like, "that's dumb, you could do that so much easier with this other process, and the things that you care about are really irrelevant, and you could be doing it in another simpler way." (Cue deadly reading that in one of his special voices) And maybe you're right, maybe you could do it in another way, but that would be completely missing the point, and then to even sharpen that, say that shit to an artist when you yourself are not an artist and don't have a flame burning inside of yourself, and you don't even produce work. Like, you're going to tell me about fire when you are smoldering at best. Fuck that dude.

You turning in a track for that sample flip, btw?

Ok well first of all, I've been a musician all my life so you can fuck off with you're "I'm an artist and you're not" bullshit. Just because I don't release half baked shit and call it done doesn't mean I can't make music. Sorry if my having high standards offends your "fuck it, it's good enough" attitude. Evidently we have different ideas on what constitutes artistic fulfillment. I prefer quality over quantity, you seem fond of the opposite approach. I see a lot of people with high regard for their own skills releasing shit that I wouldn't consider anywhere near finished. Cats are churning out disposable forgettable shit and uploading it to soundcloud by the time they should be scrapping it or taking their first coffee break. Does that make them "better" than me? I suppose, if we're going by your quantity criteria.

I've spent hundreds of hours improvising with bands so I'm no stranger to the wing it approach. Production is where I go for something a lot more premeditated. While jamming is fun for the parties involved, nobody is going to sit around and listen to you riff for 20 minutes. It needs to be more polished than some masturbatory discursive mess. Production is the same way. If you're alright with just slapping some shit together and calling it art then you should be questioning your own artistic vision not mine. The guise of "ooh baby I like it rawww" only holds up so long. You can't just apply that to the whole process as an excuse to not have to put in the time or be critical.

As for the hardware thing, a lot of dudes shell out serious money for something like a mono subtractive synth that they could approximate 99% in software. It seems like such an asinine investment to me in terms of cost vs benefit. Like how is that lowpassed saw wave any better than the software version you used before? "Oh you don't get it man it's got like this vibe!" It just sounds like people trying to justify the big price tag on some primitive piece of gear that they bought to scratch some nostalgic itch. If that's what gets you off, whatever man it's your money. But as someone who gives no shits about mimicking those sounds of yore, hailing a piece of hardware as the crux of making good music is lunatic. You can noodle on a super expensive Moog or you can noodle on a soft synth. Yeah the Moog might sound a bit more rich but you're still just noodling, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test two weeks later anyway.

Not doing the sample flip cause the sample was recorded on a fuckin speak-n-spell or some shit. Not feeling those 4khz vibes.

loool

Genevieve wrote:Someone's hit a nerve.

SunkLo wrote:Not doing the sample flip cause the sample was recorded on a fuckin speak-n-spell or some shit. Not feeling those 4khz vibes.

And here is the bottom line. Always finding excuses for why you can't do something, rather than finding reasons why you can do something.

Same old, same old, smh bbq.

I started fucking with it but it just sounded disgusting. You've being going on about the importance of timbre on inspiration, there's a prime example. I'm not gonna force it if it sounds shit. That's how a lot of poop music gets made.

Also the way a lot of great music gets made.

That sample is GONE after 10k. You can say oh shit, can't use that, OR you can say, oh shit, 10k and above is MINE. One of those ways of thinking is destructive and leads to nothing, another is creative and leads to new things. The way you see that is your choice, it is your AUTHORITY.

sez:

what is this flip u speak of?

Check TUNA! thread last page or two, we're doing a sample flip along with TUNA!, though I think I'll just be doing the flip. It is an mp3 song, and a break. Think we're going to be doing this on the weekly if Zoso doesn't shit the bed.

The issue is more the distortion that's in the passband. I wasn't going to get something I liked out of it so why waste my time? I'll work on something else instead. Guess I'm not an artist since I don't force shit sounding pegs into mediocre sounding holes.

Guess not, your choice.

Shit squares in shit holes.

I want a Poly-61. The only Korg synth I own is a little NS5R.