Dated synth? How come they are dated but not electric guitars?

Don't worry young women have become the growth market for guitar purchases.

 

They still do? In today's world? Not so sure that's often true anymore.

 

Yeah. I was talking more about 80's and 90's stuff. And I love keyboards and a lot of 80's music, but there's some records that even without a keyboard player, you can pinpoint the decade just from how the guitars (and drums) sound.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

Better to use computer music program, make a beat, sing, fix singing using correction and add some reverb....bam you are a panty dropping artiste! Or mumble over said beat either way.

 

It would be for economic growth, but a recent Economist article showed the US still in a pretty good place in this regard when compared to other developed countries in Western Europe (and with Japan).

 

I would say it’s because synths aren’t used in modern rock music that much anymore so hearing them sounds like a older song.
Personally when I hear “dated synth” I think of 1980s pop- rock groups

 

There are two separate issues here: the attractiveness or not of the sounds an instrument makes and the association of an instrument with out of fashion songs or styles.

Some instruments have limited expressivity. A xylophone doesn't express emotion easily but composers used it as a coloristic resource not a main instrument. The problem with digital synths, bagpipes etc is not their use but their Overuse.

Electric guitars have been used in a variety of songs for decades so they are not tied to a particular style. Particular sound effects may be favored or not but it still sounds like an electric guitar of some kind. Digital synthesizers or Farfisa organs or cowbells etc etc have a more circumscribed usage and thus will rise or fall with the specific music they are associated with.

 

I really don't care about economics, just think the world is just massively overpopulated, and we could dial it back a bit.

 

a great example of "dated synths" is on Vangelis' - Direct...I still love it though

 

I think it's his last great record, dated synths and all...

 

I agree with this and I'd like to elaborate.

I can tell Rick Wakeman from Keith Emerson from Jan Hammer from Kerry Minnear, and so on. Their individuality comes through not only because of their playing style but also to a degree in the sounds they created with their instruments.

Let's take Devo as a case history here. Mark Mothersbaugh had a certain musical personality that came through on their first few albums. Fast forward to 1988 and their live abomination... I mean album... Now It Can Be Told. This live album has digital synths all over it, in fact I'm not even sure they had ANY analog synths on that tour. And the result is a faceless, sterile sound. And BTW, this isn't helped by a different drummer who lacked the feel and determined drive of Alan Meyers from most of the earlier albums. Sounded like some anonymous session musicians sitting in on the drums and synths.

The only keyboardist that I can honestly think of whose musical personality somehow came through even after moving to digital synths is Keith Emerson. The SOUNDS weren't very pleasant but somehow you can still tell it's him. I don't know how he managed to pull that off, but there you go. I mean, hell, he even appeared on a live radio show once playing a cheap Casio and it STILL sounded like him. So he obviously had some type of magic, but he's definitely an exception.

So yes, a million words later, I think the fact that it was so easy to just go with the presets on these digital things caused a lot of problems creatively speaking, and is largely to blame for the "dated" tag that so often gets thrown around.

 

...and for those things that fit in a purse and can 'equalize' unexpected social encounters (hint: they are not latex-based products).

 

I've got a few minutes to write a little more about this, so here goes.

Analog synths are still very much in demand. People from all walks go for them whenever they go up on eBay or show up in the local music shops.

Yamaha's DX7 was a real breakthrough in the digital synth market. People loved it, but mostly because it could emulate the Rhodes EP to a "T", and was a lot easier to cart around. It got kind of a bad rap from overuse... in other words, it couldn't do very realistic string or horn sounds very well, but there were plenty of folks out there who used it for exactly that, and the result was kind of a cheesy emulation. The Roland D-50 was another breakthrough, but its forte was those light, airy, breathy sounds that were a little reminiscent of the Fairlight. Again, people heard the word "synth", and tried to make it do things it wasn't very good at.

Then the ROMplers started coming out... the Korg M and T series being among the first to do it very well. Those are still very much in demand, and M1's sell pretty quickly on the used market when they show up. The T Series synths don't sell nearly as well, but I have to believe that's because a lot of people don't know what a T Synth is. The M1 has a reputation. The T is the same as an M1, with twice the ROM samples, and IMO is a better synth because of that. It'll do anything an M1 will do, and more. But it'll always sound like an M1 or T1. The tone set is locked into the ROM, and you can only do so much with it.

The Roland JV-1080 is reported to be the most used synth modules in the industry, and found a place in a ton of now-classic recordings. This is important because, like the Korg M and T series, it's a ROMpler too. It had different tonal characteristics than the Korgs though, and it had resonant filters. Point being, it didn't sound like the Korgs no matter what you did to it, and you couldn't make the Korgs sound like the Roland either.

To make a long story short, each synth has its own character, and there are plenty of folks today who use both hard and soft synths for music production, but here's the thing... they don't use just one. Many have an arsenal, and it's not unusual to see a keyboardist at a concert with a dedicated stage piano like the Nord, plus four or five synths that they use for different sounds.

In a way, I guess you could say that a guitar is more like a sax or a violin, in that you use one instrument to produce a variety of sounds, whereas a synth is more like an individual drum in a drum kit. You can't really put together a fullblown percussion arrangement with just a snare. You need a collection of drums for the desired effect, and keyboardists have their collections, too. A single DX7 will rarely be versatile enough to carry a full live performance, and the same goes for analog.

 

Guitars don't sound dated but the effects do: fuzztone, Rat distortion, Digitech Grunge, Mu-Tron, phasers, wah-wah, and numerous Electro Harmonix gadgets.

 

Not at my house.

 

Brian Eno albums never sound dated
Some guitar albums sound dated.
Much of The 80s synthesizers sound dated.

 

Hello,

When you're composing something, you tend to use sounds that sit-well with your composition, & hopefully enhance the tune. Folks such as Pete Townshend on the album "Who's Next" tended to use synthesizers as leading melody makers, & not just as a background tool to set-up a mood. Bands like RUSH would use synths for both melody & back-ground moods, so it's a pretty versatile instrument IMO, especially with the advent of MIDI during the 1980's....

It's only when we look / listen back to older tunes, that we say that they sound dated, & that can't be helped IMO.

I believe that the electric guitar survives simply because of the relative in-expense involved in acquiring one, & the associated gear, when compared to an average, but-good synth...

There was a time when short-keyboard-synths were used & worn in a similar fashion to a guitar strapped on a player, but they didn't seem to stay with us or become popular for some unknown reason, but it appears that it wasn't as cool as a guitar...

I think that since an electric guitar can allow a player to sound more like himself when playing it, it possibly relegates synthesizers to being impersonal, & that means no-one will know that it's you playing it, or at least it becomes difficult to tell...As an example, Pink Floyd when on tour had a couple of key-board players doing their thing to get the vibe-of-the-song across, but when blind-folded, could you tell when Rick Wright was playing or not ?....But do the same test with the guitarists in the band, & you'll "always" be able to tell Dave Gilmour....

Cheers,

Gregster

NB. Jon Lord ( RIP ) was one of the only people in rock IMO that played keyboards ( & synths ) where he was instantly identifiable playing. Bill Payne from Little Feat shares this same trait too.

 

I love 70's / early 80's analog synth. To me it sounds timeless, like Emerson, Lake & Palmer's Lucky Man. You'd never hear synth like that today.

Some mid to later 80's synth has a bit of a cheesy sound to my ears. I call it the "Casio sound".

 

And when JPJ started using the Yamaha GX1 for the Rain Song it sounded bloody awful!

 

Well, do ya, ...Punk??

 

Except when he uses guitars

 

Timeless: Mellotron, Hammond B3 & C3, Moog (analog).
Dated but cool: Farfisa Compact Duo/Deluxe, Vox Continental/Jaguar, Gibson G1, *Thomas Spinet organ (96 Tears)
Dated: DX7, Elka Rhapsody, Lowrey Genie


*Combo Organ Classic: The Vox Continental

 

The funny thing is, that's essentially a list of "dated" synths from the '80s.

Eventually, I imagine even the DX7 will be rehabilitated. If it hasn't been already.

 

It certainly has in some circles, and FM synthesis is being used again in new synths.

It's ironic how people bemoan the "overused" presets on the DX7, yet every single organ I hear in new music uses a variation on Hammond B3 or Vox Continental, yet these overused sounds are considered classic.

 

Yes. Even a DX7 can sound good if programmed creatively or used in the right context. It's not the tools, it's the people using them.