Ok, thats one thing I don't get : How come today's music (mostly pop,R&B, hip-hop) which is mainly built on synthetizer and computers is despised, no matter how good it may be, people are bitching about it, like "they cant make (meaning PLAY) music anymore", "it sounds cheap, manufactured", or "cold and mechanical"... whereas some of the "greatest' artists from the 1980s did the same? Depeche mode? Princes '1999'? Culture Club? Madonna? A lot of music was made trhough synths, programming, digital effects, and yet considered great...

Even when I read albums reviews, I still have the feeling critics favor albums with 'organic'/'acoustic' sounds over the 'synth-based/digital' ones.. Often ignoring the actual quality of these albums...

I rather listen to some Kenna, depeche Mode, Daft punk tha, that FM Rock or punk shit, cause i DOES sound better

I agree fully with this. There is still a lot of very inventive, wonderful music being made with synthesizers. Of course, there's crappy music made with synthesizers too, but it's an unfair sentiment to slate music simply because it was recorded without traditional instruments.

These songs are my holy trilogy of 2009, and they all rely heavily on synths:







And then there's this from 2010, which starts of acoustic and organic and then launches into a soaring synth stomper:

Take a classic Gamble & Huff produced album:
Take your pick O Jays, Patti Labelle, Teddy Pendergrass
and compare it to your favorite Dream or Timbaland produced album and
you should answer your own question.

phunkdaddy said:

Well, yes. You can take the best organic music and compare it with some of the worst synthesized music, but the reverse can also be done.

Compare 1999 or The Man Machine or Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) to Katy Rose or Vanessa Carlton or Creed.

Moonbeam said:

.. Exactly. Thats why i always have the feeling people overlook synth music. 'organic' is ALWAYS better o them, 4 some reason (and they compare the wrong albums too... )

Well let's compare synth music of the 80's to synth music of
this decade. You guys still can't win. Prince,Rick James,Cameo,
BarKays,Lakeside,etc consistently crafted their music in the
studio to perfection and always bought it to life on stage.
You don't get that same vibe with producer driven artists today.
In fact a many of them don't even perform live shows and actually
perform to tracks. For the record a lot of people dig the synth
funk of the 80's. Hey it's a peer thing. A lot of people dig the
music they grew up on so if Lady GaGa and the like is your thing it's
all good but it would be a joke to compare her to most artists of the 80's
[Edited 5/11/10 19:16pm]

phunkdaddy said:

There are still plenty of artists who incorporate synthesizers who are viable live artists. All of the ones I linked to, for one, as well as bands like Chromeo and LCD Soundsystem. The issue is that they don't get mainstream exposure.

phunkdaddy said:

I'm not talking about comparing eras : Sure I'm sure 99% of orgers would agree that 2000s synth music is worse than 81980s synthpop... BUT the same can be said about 'organic' genres (rock, folk, country). My point is that even in the 1980s synth music was considered 'cheap' music and 'minor' art, regardless of the genres... Though many acts like Depeche Mode , Culture Club, Sft cell, Duran duran were appreciated by the 'mainstream', critics never really had fondness for them (jest check some reviews from magazines back then by googleing)... Even Prince '1999' was not considered the 'clasic' album it is now... Same for funk music in general : I'm a Cameo and S;O.S. Band fan, but whenever I talk about funk music, the're not considered as 'great ' as say, funkadelic or Parliament... Personally I think their music is as good, but the fact that it has a heavy synth sound and drum programming, people see i as 'inferior'
So-called purists seem to have issues with drum programming and synth sounds. no matter how good the music actually is, they won't reognise these artists as "real musicians" cause they dont use "real instruments', they dont play guiter or drums' ... Punk music was 99% guitar/drums/based music, but honestly 99% of it sound simply horrendous to me!

PS : I'm not a Lady GaGa fan. All I'm tryina say is that good music is good music. Discriminating because its 'synthetic' or 'organic' just sucks, IMHO

There is a lot of hate for synth based funk on this forum.

I love the synthesizers and drum machines of the 80s, they sound so raw and powerful. The cheap sounding stuff that is mass produced today pales in comparison.

minneapolisFunq said:

Not as much as there is love for that kind of music! The 80s poll sticky is full of synth funk, and thank God for that!

I don't hate it at all. But when it's produced as monotone hip-hop numbers with no imagination, that's when I'm like *cover ears*. But synth pop-funk is great.

hate was too strong of a word.

synthy funk seems to be the minority in the genre overall.

minneapolisFunq said:

Well, it is less appreciated by the general public, for sure. I do think there are plenty fans of it here, though!

Moonbeam said:

I'm one of them!

Timmy84 said:

Me too, although I have plenty to learn!

I used to feel abit of resentment against computer/synth-oriented music untill I saw this clip(what Herbie said @ the end)...


To me, I need some balance. As much as I need my organic music, I need my synth-driven music too,,,,HELL, wasn't Stevie Wonder the one who revolutionized the use of synthesizers?

Granted, I understand some of the resentment against computerized music. Some artists rely almost COMPLETELY on them, when an instrument should be the vehicle to help you tell your story, those artists let those computers tell THEIR stories for them instead.

Too much out of everything is bad, in short.

Harlepolis said:

I agree with everything you posted except for this. I don't think there's any difference between pushing a key to plucking a string or blowing air through a brass pipe in terms of legitimacy. If someone makes an epic album using a tongue depresser as an instrument, it still is an artistic expression.

FrenchGuy said:

How about because of the fact that there were a lot of tracks in the late 70's & early 80's that were uptempo and the drum machine beats (especially the Linn LM-1 & Roland TR-808) on most of those recording were hard.....not like most of the music from the late 90's and damn nearly all of the 2000's where the tracks were at a slow downtempo of 95 BPM or less and the (Fisher Price-like sounding) drum machine beats were soft Boom Boom tap da Boom.

KEY WORD: tempo

If all gerne today (synths or no synths) were at a danceable tempo between 110 & 136 BPM, then fair enough. But 95 BPM or less? Damn that, we need to bitch about this problem.

phunkdaddy said:

For anything, Lady Gaga-fanbots (like how BlaqueKnight calls them ) needs to check out the first 2 career albums by Jane Child before they dare to faulty accuse me for falling behind the times.

They also need to check out some early freestyle/club-dance classics by Trinere while they're at it.

minneapolisFunq said:

Not by me. I'm one of THE biggest supporters of synth-funk!

But there are some funk purists in the org that are into the classic horn-driven funk. I agree with them that it's the best funk (especially the way Kool & The Gang did it in the 70's!). But I listen to synth-funk a lot more.

Harlepolis said:

Kraftwerk, Wendy Carlos, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman AND Stevie Wonder revolutionized the use of synthesizers in music pop culture.

TonyVanDam said:

Well actually the majority of synth-based music in the 1990s and the 2000s was 'dance' (or Eurodance/techno/house, however U call it) and a fair share of pop music with a fast BPM (mostly around 110-120 BPM)... Still no love...
Though I think slowing down the music made things worse, even back in the 90s , uptempo electronic/synth music wasnt appreciated thath much... I remember my big bro (whos a drummer) always mocking the 'toy sounding'...
And he HATES synth funk... No music without big ass horn section and 25000 background vocalists should be called "funk", according to him!!

Harlepolis said:

Wow, more ppl should see THIS! Thanx

First of all, I don't see all this "hate" you're referring to.
Second, it's not about the instrument/s used, it would boil down to whether the song is any good.

A few years ago, I saw a solo concert (meaning he was the only musician) by Thomas Dolby done completely with electronic instruments:
http://prince.org/msg/8/185529


What made it an entertaining and watchable performance was that the songs were extremely good. That's the bottom line.




Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

theAudience said:

theAudience said:

Exactly! I was reading a Jim Beard interview, and he quoted a great line from Herbie Hancock on the issue:

"Carina: What do you prefer - digital or analog technology?

Jim Beard: They are both great. An answer that Herbie (Hancock) gave to a question many years ago, which I think was a great answer: Somebody was asking him what he thinks about computer-generated music, sequencers and all this and he said: ‚'It is only as good or as bad as the genius or the idiot who is making it.' "

I think the only problem for me was that the industry began to use computers as a wide-ranging shortcut for making music, rather than just using them as tools. Rather than look it is another way to create art, they used it as an economic excuse to supplant a lot of musicians, especially in R&B.










...
[Edited 5/12/10 23:46pm]

Two words: Brian Eno

Moonbeam said:

Gravy, and I agree. But what I meant was how synthesizers are used as a trend nowadays to alter some people's voices in order to give them bigger ranges,,,untill its time for them to bring it on live!

Artistic expression to ME is stemmed from sincerity,,,by whatever method you use, but when it relys on deception, then its not art, its fraud.

There's nothing wrong with the synths. Prince's "1999" album or Gary Numan's "Cars" sound great because it sounds very cold, dark, and futuristic like we imagined the 2000s would sound like (little did we know the 2000s would be duller than ever). With everything, it's the type that's used. Synths like those sound cold and futuristic where synths like Snoop Doggy Dogg uses sounds very cheap and childish. They remind me of Mickey Mouse when I hear them.

Drum machines are another problem. I'm damn sick of people throwing Prince's "1999" album up when we shit on today's music. Everyone knows damn well the type of drum machines used today sound nothing like the ones Prince used. Today's barely tap where's Prince's pounded. Prince also used real drums with the drum machines which gave the songs power. That's the difference in the "1999" album and the "MPLShit" album. Today's drum machines sound shit hoppish. The 1980s drum machines didn't sound shit hoppish because shit hop wasn't invented yet. House music drum machines sound great too. They just have a different sound but they pound hard and sound good. The bottom line is, today's songs have a shit hop sounding drum machine on them which are the drum machines that just barely tap and then the no taste bastards play them at a damn slow ass opera tempo which makes them sound even worse.

It's not the fact that it's drum machines or synths that makes today's music sound cheap and horrible. It's the fact that they use them in a shit hop sounding way because shit hop is THE worst sounding thing in the entire history of music. Let the bullshit die already.