I was curious about peoples opinions on this.
I was talking to my friend last night about synthesisers and she prefered more tradtional instruments to them; i.e. guitars to simulated guitar sounds. I guess for her it sounds more "rawer" I was trying to argue they add a new dimension as instruments. How do you all feel about it? Personally I think they have a purpose in some songs, and just don't work in others.

Exactly what TVD said. ^

I love synths.

...when they have imagination and feeling behind them.

If it's just some preset pattern like TVD said then it's just garbage -- like a lot of this snap/"heavy bass, but no flavor" madness going on in today's rap music. The BPMs and overall sound is just so unimaginative.

I'm seeing a resurrgence of more imaginative synths coming out of the post-punk revival and the indie/electronic dance scene right now.

But Swedish pop seems to always has the most delicious and inventive synth arrangements. Amy Diamond's latest album "Still Me Still Now" is such a HEAD TRIP if you just listen to how it was engineered.

I love synths, but I hate sampling.

theodore said:

You just hate Fergie.

To me, its kind of like asking whether a I prefer electric bass or acoustic bass.

I like both. Their both just tools. It's all about context.

Stax said:

I was thinking about context too. The Clavinet is considered a synth, right?
But it kind of closely resembles a guitar like sound;
So in context, would a song like say, Superstition would be changed if it was all guitar instead of clav? Would it make it more rawer, or would it depend on how its played?