Author |
Message |
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:
Re: That 70's sound! |
|
|
Bill Zoot wrote: | ...but am looking for something specific - THAT 70'S SOUND!!! |
What is "that 70s sound"?
David Vorhaus or Zawinul?
Wakeman or Vega?
_________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kkissinger
Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Posts: 1356 Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 42
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The 70s sound had a lot to do with the latest and greatest technology and in those days there wasn't a lot of talk about "retro" technology.
And, as such, there are a lot of different things that come to mind when thinking about synthesizers in the 70s. For instance, sequencers, sample/holds, and tracking oscillators were definitely "in". External Phasers hit the scene -- Tomita used them a lot. There were electronic drums that many consider "cheesy" today. Detuned oscillators to produce "string" sounds were "in".
So many people were doing so many different things it is hard to come up with THE 70s sound (are you looking for Wendy Carlos' 70s sound or "The Who's" 70s sound?). The controllers, outboard effects, and the performers themselves influenced the sound as much as the synths did.
As far as a synth recommendation, it depends on what slice of the 70's you want.
The Moog filters are classic, and MiniMoogs are coveted. The Arp's have sample/holds that the Moogs don't have.
A simple, single oscillator synth that accepts external CVs might do the job... you could acquire external modules as modulation sources. A single-oscillator synth that is entirely hard-wired may give you an overly-limited slice of the 70's.
The analog synths are subject to noise, distortion, and drifting that will either add or detract from your sound, depending on what you want.
Have fun... will be interesting to hear what you end up doing. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
v-un-v
Janitor
Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 8933 Location: Birmingham, England, UK
Audio files: 11
G2 patch files: 1
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:53 am Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: |
Read my posts again. |
Okay- it was late... _________________ ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKSEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
v-un-v
Janitor
Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 8933 Location: Birmingham, England, UK
Audio files: 11
G2 patch files: 1
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:56 am Post subject:
Re: That 70's sound! |
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | Bill Zoot wrote: | ...but am looking for something specific - THAT 70'S SOUND!!! |
What is "that 70s sound"?
David Vorhaus or Zawinul?
Wakeman or Vega?
|
Tonto's Expanding Head Band. They were very 'fat' sounding. But then I may be rekindling the idea that you need a 3c to get 'that' sound _________________ ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKSEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
morbius
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Great Smoky Mountains - USA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I must confess that I didn't have time to read all of the replies....
If 70's sounds are what you're after... just about any analog or analog modular will do the trick. And the trick is know how to get the sounds you want.
As you get more digital, you get less authentic 70's (IMO). Still, if you want or need to keep the budget small... someone mentioned the MS-2000 being pretty cheap these days I've got one... love it... and think it would get you there very easily... plus it's got some good, modern extras.
Should you have more available in your bank account, and really want the 70's sound... well... get you a modular. _________________ ~Morbius~
http://www.MusicByCybertron.com
morbius001a@yahoo.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Electronicant
Joined: Feb 23, 2006 Posts: 81 Location: North
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
g2ian wrote: |
Hot
Roland – Almost everything else
Yamaha – CS80/60
Korg – 700 (the dual oscillator version)
ARP – Odyssey, 2600
Moog – Mini, Memory, Source
Octave – Cat SRM
EMS – Synthi AKS |
The Oberheims and Sequential Prophets as well. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
modulator_esp
Stream Operator
Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 2845 Location: Nottingham, UK
Audio files: 276
G2 patch files: 1
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:59 am Post subject:
|
|
|
g2ian wrote: | It seems a common assumption, that any real analogue synthesiser is superior to any digital emulation.
They made a lot of great synthesisers in the 70’s, a lot of which I would like to own now. They also made a lot of crap.
I would not bother with anything that only had one VCO for example.
Maybe we should do a hot and not hot list of 70’s synthesisers
Not Hot
Roland - SH1000, SH1, SH101, MC202, any Juno
Yamaha - Any mono synth except CS30
Korg – All the MS range, Monopoly, 70’s Microkorg, Any DW
ARP – Axxe, Prosoloist, Omni
Moog – Poly, Minute, Micro, Multi, Sonic Six
Octave – Kitten
Hot
Roland – Almost everything else
Yamaha – CS80/60
Korg – 700 (the dual oscillator version)
ARP – Odyssey, 2600
Moog – Mini, Memory, Source
Octave – Cat SRM
EMS – Synthi AKS |
Half of these are actually 80s synths
Regardless of that you can get some greats sounds out of most of those you've listed as not hot and I'd have any of them over a soft synth or a DSP based synth anyday. _________________ Jez
music | adventures in sound | gear for sale |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:
|
|
|
It seems like you could almost work backwards. Find the synths that were available in the seventies, and then determine what sounds you are trying to achieve with that synth. If it's not possible to, say, create an arpeggio with a MiniMoog (just a random selection from the list), then find out what other hardware may have been used with the Moog in the 70s to create the effect.
I usually think this way when I'm trying to give sounds a 60s or 50s sound. Back then, there were very little options regarding microphones and microphone placement, stereo sound and different types of reverb, for example. _________________ One Player Game | OPG on SoundCloud |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
opg wrote: | Back then, there were very little options regarding microphones and microphone placement, stereo sound and different types of reverb, for example. |
Quite so but also remember that they did feel a large need for more options and that this led to more concious thought about what to use where and how. Many recording from those days are in fact very creative.
For example; I listened to a lot of 60's music especially to try and pick up how the recording process influenced the sound and I'm convinced that where they bounced several tracks to a single tape channel they carefully considdered which ones would fit together musically. In these days of 64 or more channels getting used in DAW's that's a perspective that's no longer needed but so it's also a creative tool and a point to stop and think that got lost. _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Kassen wrote: | opg wrote: | Back then, there were very little options regarding microphones and microphone placement, stereo sound and different types of reverb, for example. |
Quite so but also remember that they did feel a large need for more options and that this led to more concious thought about what to use where and how. Many recording from those days are in fact very creative.
|
In my opinion, this is most fundamental way to awaken your own creativity and get out of writer's blocks. This has a bit to do with the robotics/technology thread, but when you are driven to create music but don't have very much to use, the one thing that will stand out is your creativity. Autechre started out by splicing cassette tapes. I had a Casio SK-1, a drumset, and a cassette recorder with a built-in mic (though I was just a kid, so I probably wasn't thinking about "tracks" or "the stereo field).
This is also why I am trying to avoid VST instruments and plug-ins. Everything is all there, ready to use. There's nothing to set up. When you're struggling to make mic cables reach and adjusting overdrive and wah pedals that are attached to toy keyboards that are buried underneath pots and pans, you're in a rush to get the sound in your head on tape/computer before you lose it. That energy is what helps give me boosts of creativity. _________________ One Player Game | OPG on SoundCloud |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Afro88
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 701 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Audio files: 12
G2 patch files: 79
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The other thing is, when you limit yourself you really get to know your gear. This is part of the reason why I decided to go 100% legit and buy everything I wanted to use - there was no way in hell I could afford the wealth of plugins I had amassed a few years ago, so I had to cut right back to the basics. 1 sequencer with it's built in EQ's, compressors, filters etc. I learnt pretty quickly that it's not the gear you have but how you use it. No matter what gear you have, if you get to know it inside out you can get it to do the things you want it to do (even if you didn't know it at the time ). |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kkissinger
Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Posts: 1356 Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 42
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Indeed, with limited equipment one is forced to be resourceful. You might be interested to hear what I did back in 1976 with the equipment at hand.
During the summer of 1976 I had for the first time, acquired a multi-track recorder (a Teac A3340S) and the only electronic sound source I had was a Hammond E-100 organ (I recorded directly from the line-out). I used a 60's transistorized JC Penny's tape recorder as a distortion unit for the "lead" track.
I recorded at 1/2 speed so I could could get a more "mechanical" effect and have more time to manipulate drawbars and other Hammond controls. Lacking adapter plugs, I seem to recall using alligator clips to get the Hammond sound in and out of the Penny's recorder.
I had to play as mechanically as possible to create a "sequencer" kind of effect.
In the remix I took a little artistic license and used some gentle phasing to make the lead part "spread" out. I also noise-gated and notched out the 60hz hum. Other than that, you are hearing what I did with the equipment at hand.
Now, I know this is probably NOT the 70s sound you had in mind -- however, synths were at the time very pricey and for all intents and purposes only professionals and universities had them. At the time I recorded this, I had made my first order with Aries Music -- the modular synth was on the way! While waiting for it, I had some fun with the A3340S.
In some ways electronic music-making is tougher these days. There are so many options that one can go into option-shock. The decisions with an organ, a recorder-turned-distortion unit, and a tape-recorder were pretty easy! |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ian-s
Joined: Apr 01, 2004 Posts: 2670 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Audio files: 42
G2 patch files: 626
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
modulator_esp wrote: | Half of these are actually 80s synths
|
Yeah I did kind of wander into the early 80's with some of those Rolands. It was more a general rant about overrated old budget synthesisers.
Which had their place I guess. And you are absolutely correct, in the right hands, all these synthesisers have at least one or two good sounds in them.
Cheers |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18198 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 213
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
kkissinger wrote: | IYou might be interested to hear what I did back in 1976 with the equipment at hand. |
Hey, I like this one. It has a musicality that is refreshing. I like the "sound" too.
Thanks for posting this... _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kerr_Avon
Joined: Jan 09, 2006 Posts: 43 Location: UK Aldershot
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:03 am Post subject:
Soft Chav Synths Subject description: Rant |
|
|
My problem with soft synths from the very start is that they all seem to be aimed at mindless 14 year olds with a penchant for chavved-up Vauxhall Novas. (read: cheap under-powered car with added stripes, accessories and loud exhaust) Usable user-interface? No, but "Wow mate, dunnit just look like a well wikked synth" The person who first thought that rotary knob style controls work well with a computer screen and a mouse needs a firm and hard slap followed by a punch right up his bracket.
Future note for all programming monkeys: Provide a skin with standard windows interface or don't expect me to even look at it. And that applies to your brigade of Monkeys too, Mr. Steinberg. Make it work first, give me my standard readable interface, then and only then assign a spare monkey to designing unusable UI skins for idiots who will never really use it. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18198 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 213
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:36 am Post subject:
Re: Soft Chav Synths Subject description: Rant |
|
|
Kerr_Avon wrote: | My problem with soft synths from the very start is that they... |
Wow, you stuck it to soft synths, programmers, 14 year olds, monkies, Mr. Steinberg and Vauxhall Novas!
Hope you are feeling better now, Henry.
Yipee, I get to use the latest addition to the emoticon collection. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kkissinger
Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Posts: 1356 Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 42
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:32 am Post subject:
Re: Soft Chav Synths Subject description: Rant |
|
|
Kerr_Avon wrote: | ...Mr. Steinberg. |
Indeed, the early Cubase versions that ran on Atari equipment had a klutzy GUI (particularly for the automated mixer) and it was easier just to work with the event lists.
Cubase SX3 has a really nice GUI -- the automated functions display and can be edited graphically along with the audio or midi event display. They still have a mixing console GUI that I find good for getting a "big" picture of things but for individual track automation, I prefer the graphical editor (definitely a windows style interface). Also, on the Mixers, the level trim is calibrated in db (actually, to 1/10 of a db) and can be set by typing the value into a field on the display.
Cubase's sample editing has always been excellent.
Some of the VST plugins use control knob style GUIs. I agree with you, slider controls seem more natural than knobs for a GUI.
Anyway... we have strayed way off-topic from "That 70's Sound". |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kerr_Avon
Joined: Jan 09, 2006 Posts: 43 Location: UK Aldershot
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:
Monkeys Subject description: Programming |
|
|
All emoticons should be
But now I really am off topic:} |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|