While most of the topics in this forum deal with gear in the form of drum machines and synths, I haven’t seen many topics regarding the equipment involved in production of minimal wave/coldwave, etc. music..
Anyone have any insights into what was used to capture some of the sounds we all enjoy in these genres? To expand on the topic, has anyone here had any success in replicating the feel and these records with modern equipment?
I think certain production techniques and equipment contributed a lot to the sounds on these records and this discussion can hopefully help to cast some light on what went into creating some of these memorable sounds.
Because so many of these records sound so different from each other, there’s a lot of information that can be added to this thread, whether it be why one record sounds the way it does compared to another, or what techniques and equipment others out there are using to produce similar music today.
Yes, this is an interesting point to start.
However the questions cover such an extreme wide area, it seems to broad to answer.
If you don’t mind I like to take this topic to another level.
There is some things that always puzzled me as recording engineer from the early 80’s.
It seems a lot of people that are part of this new Minimal Wave/Synth scene idolize the equipment we used back then.
I think that if you take the original releases from those days you will find little to no prove “we” were very proud of the equipment we used.
As for myself and the people I recorded with I can state we were always looking forward to new equipment to better our sound.
If I look at modern bands that try to mimic the sound of us back then it strikes me that they put that limited equipment on a statue.
I always wondered why ?
Surely we live in another time.
Just using the equipment from back then will not help to get back to those days.
I see at least everyone on this forum using the internet which wasn’t available back then.
Days of the past will never return so I do not know what’s the purpose of getting to know the old techniques.
It’s not idolization…I believe the equipment in question is for the most part the height of a certain kind of technology that very rapidly began to disappear with the advent of the Digital, Sampling and Personal Computing….For me, and I imagine I can speak for a few others, the choice to use a SH09, ARP 2600 or a Space Echo pour ex. , requires a break and a commitment to a particular instrument or rather a particular class of instruments (exploring and charting a craft as opposed to a culture of neophyte desire for future technologies which seek to speed up the process of musicmaking, sanitize the output, and ultimately limit one’s contact with the instrument.)
“Days of the past will never return so I do not know what’s the purpose of getting to know the old techniques” Benito Mussolini
[quote author=“nuit-exterieur”]For me, and I imagine I can speak for a few others, the choice to use a SH09, ARP 2600 or a Space Echo pour ex. , requires a break and a commitment to a particular instrument or rather a particular class of instruments (exploring and charting a craft as opposed to a culture of neophyte desire for future technologies which seek to speed up the process of musicmaking, sanitize the output, and ultimately limit one’s contact with the instrument.)
“Days of the past will never return so I do not know what’s the purpose of getting to know the old techniques” Benito Mussolini
Sure Sean,
I understand that you can choose an Arp2600 just like someone else chooses an acoustic guitar for an instrument.
I am also aware of the fact that choosing a real synth instead of a soft-synth means working in another way and so results in different music.
But my point was that as far as I can remember everybody dumped their synths or rhythm machines as soon as a new version appeared on the market.
This way I dumped a CR-78 for a TR606 and I felt lucky
I dumped the MS20 for a Yamaha CS30 and I felt lucky
Eventually I sold the TR606-TB303 combination and I was lucky with the money
I am not sure if you can fall in love with an instrument like a Minimoog as much as some can fall in love with a piano but I personally doubt the appeal of the Mini simply because those synths were all instruments in development
So in short I wanted to point out the perception today seems to be completely different from back then. The choice you can make nowadays for the “old-timers” is a choice we couldn’t make because there was nothing newer.
Why do you quote me as if my quote being that of Mussolini ?
I googled it but I found no connection.
Can you please explain ?
things are heating up i agree this is a great topic, btw, and would love to see some more insight in terms of practical production techniques.
i think sean’s points are well-taken - outside of any symbolic or nostalgic attachment to ‘antiquated’ gear, even outside of sonic concerns (although there is relatively little new equipment that sounds very good imo), there is a set of purely practical, physical performative concerns. you simply can’t interact with a microkorg and a laptop running cubase the same way you can an sh-09 and a csq-600.
i agree, however, that the potential for a dangerous retrograde fixation runs high in this genre. and fetishizing high-end vintage analog gear is ever the more troublesome as prices continue to climb. even a tr-606 or sh-101 sell for 50% more than they were selling just 2-3 years ago.
if synthesizer manufacturers were to be more accomodating to these aforementioned performative concerns, i personally would have no problem buying, using, fetishizing new equipment
i’m intrigued by ton’s assertion that one can’t fall in love with a minimoog (or similar synthesizer) because it is an instrument in development. do you care to elaborate? is not that uneasiness and ‘work in progress’ quality part of the appeal of synthesis?
Sounds like a regular discussion that fits nearly every topic
Idolization of old vs acception of the new.
While that wasn’t the original topic of this thread, i’ll add a bit.
“Back then” everything was limited. 16 steps x 24 patterns on a sequencer, no possibility to “save” the knob settings other than writing them down with a pencil, a wonderful choice of less than a dozen similar sounding devices to buy etc etc.
“These days” everything is excessive. Storing your every improvisation in midi, thousands of presets the sound of all you can’t possibly memorize, gigabytes of samples, virtual music studio, everything being dumped on your brain so you can’t deal with it properly, let alone experimenting with something deeply and carefully.
Limited equipment gets you to caress it with deep attention, while excessive possibilites leave you lost among.Thus we can clearly see the difference in approach to music 30 years ago and today.
While music of 80’s is highly defined by limitedness, today’s music is highly defined by excessiveness. It’s like additive synthesis vs subtractive synthesis
Maybe “idolizing” the old equipment has something to do with it.
Not accepting excessive possibilities, trying to limit oneself with the minimum of former days.
Also, maybe it has something to do with being able to speak that language and having the same experience when you’re making music. When you don’t want to find yourself playing three polyphonic minimoog split and FM pad with trance gate all on a single keyboard.
The Minimoog did develop ( one may even make the epistemological leap and say that the minimoog is the consequential development of the piano)...It was in production for something like 11 years…(longer than any genus of digital synths that I can think of.) There were various incarnations of it - the specific model #s don’t come to mind, but I know there was, for instance, a D series; moreover one can say that any electronic music instrument is in a state of development as we are barely a century into their naissance ....and electronics in and of itself has always had an awkward affinity with development, refinement, and the high logic of hybridization.
“if synthesizer manufacturers were to be more accomodating to these aforementioned performative concerns”
I believe this is taking place already; maybe only on a boutique level but there is an overwhelming demand and enthusiasm for analog based electronics; whether it be the Music from Outerspace folks, Serge (Sound Transform Systems), Modcan, or MFB, etc. there are scores of manufactures and twice-that the number of forums dedicated to this very thing. And as Shawn said, I have no problem using any of this stuff as it speaks to the heart of the craft.
By the Mussolini reference I was only, possibly in an exaggerated way, drawing a comparison to the fascist/futurist disavowal of history, a crushing of past precepts about culture which your statement seemed to engender.
OK Sean I take back the statement about the purpose of getting to know the old techniques although I do no like the fact you compare me to a fascist or think my words promote a fascist way of thinking. I saw people get banned here for much less.
Yes I can agree on the fact (and I already stated ) that the kind of instrument you choice also dictates (within limits) what kind of music you come up with.
The VPRO made a documentary in 1984 of U2 recording the Unforgettable Fire album. I saw the documentary and the words of Eno made a big impression on me. In 1984 he already stated the possibilities for musicians were seemingly limitless and that potentially would kill creativity. He then already limited the equipment for the band. I found recent an interview in which he stated this again:
“But what I do can work for any artist. In modern recording one of the biggest problems is that you’re in a world of endless possibilities. So I try to close down possibilities early on. I limit choices. I confine people to a small area of manoeuvre. There’s a reason that guitar players invariably produce more interesting music than synthesizer players: you can go through the options on a guitar in about a minute, after that you have to start making aesthetic and stylistic decisions. This computer can contain a thousand synths, each with a thousand sounds. I try to provide constraints for people.”
As for myself it was probably no coincidence I lost experimenting with electronics once midi was introduced. On the other hand I couldn’t convince myself to stay with the analog synths. I guess a lack of insight.
Another interesting thing is that it seems only valid in creative processes.
In every day life no one would want his Amiga computer back to do his business on.
Once you have a mobile phone it’s not easy to go back to the house phone alone.
Interesting.
just a quick reply -
@ nuit exterieur -
while there is definitely considerable activity in the boutique modular world, that sphere is hardly accessible to even the moderately synth-savvy (such as myself), and certainly well beyond both the budget and general comprehension of the less rigorous. (although it’s become increasingly apparent to me that i should bite the bullet and start investing in some sort of modular system… :x )
anyway, why DSI or korg, for instance, continue churning out these plastic-sounding, self-obfuscating midi boxes baffles me deeply.
@ ton -
that’s a great eno quote!
the notion of people returning to 80’s consumer technology as some sort of aesthetic statement is amusing, but perhaps illuminating. synthesizers from roland, yamaha, korg, etc were indeed designed as disposal consumer products, not works of art, not artisanally crafted instruments….when framed like that we do all appear to suffer from some brand of stubborn ludditism.
There are some very affordable modular synths / kits available (I know I’m not savvy either with assembly). For example, check out Health Club Music out of Portland or Blacet Research Systems. Of course the nice thing about most of these systems is you can build a unit up piecemeal: purchasing an Osc here, a VCF there…..
To be honest those I know with the least to spend on gear have gone this route….
“synthesizers from roland, yamaha, korg, etc were indeed designed as disposal consumer products”
I have been thinking about this for a few weeks now and have realised that pre-digital era Rolands and Korgs are some of the most reliable of the synths which I have owned over the years…Perhaps disposable but solidly constructed and dependable. That they are not “works of art” suggests an utilitarian function, one which, as consumer products, lends them to be played hard and endure the rugged trials of flightcases, clubsmoke, and daily beatings.
What do you mean by disposable?
What isn’t disposable?
@Ton
I am not calling you Fascist - whatever that is supposed to mean these days?
I was alluding more to Futurist ideas about art which the Fascists later on alligned themselves with…a break with the past in favor of some future perfect Utopia…
heh…i certainly prefer your appraisal of said equipment as utilitarian and rugged
i simply meant disposable in the sense that ton suggested earlier - equipment that was to be replaced when the next generation of tools hit the market. the same way we treat computers or cellphones. it was only considerably after the fact that people started doting over the majestic qualities of these consumer-grade electronics - while there has much longer been a shade of reverence for say, buchla or moog systems, as ‘great works of art’ (not without good reason, obviously). the most glaring and perhaps comical example is the tb-303, that toy-like box which was practically dumpster fodder upon initial release and now easily nets $1000-2000.
and come to think of it, there are plenty of instances where people prefer all sorts of outdated and outmoded tools, for reasons both practical and intangible, even outside of creative fields. from using an ancient cast iron skillet to driving a gas-guzzling vintage automobile…
and oodles of cases within non-electronic music that no one even bats an eye at, let alone levels critiques of retro-fetishism (a rock band using tube amps from the 60’s, a violinist playing a 19th century violin) .. so really, i’m not sure how different this case of using vintage synthesizers is.
Precisely…the phenomenon of rethinking the ‘outdated’ is found in every discipline, whether it be book design, jewelry design, metalwork, woodworking, cooking - mortar & pestle comes to mind, hunting, gathering….
[quote author=“nuit-exterieur”]Precisely…the phenomenon of rethinking the ‘outdated’ is found in every discipline, whether it be book design, jewelry design, metalwork, woodworking, cooking - mortar & pestle comes to mind, hunting, gathering….
Well Sean,
I hope you can agree with me outdated probably isn’t the correct word here.
Oudated and old fashioned indicate things of no use any more but as we saw from the discussion the equipment you use isn’t by definition from the past.
You stated yourself there is renewed interest in building these synths.
Please allow me to combine the statement from Eno talking about limitations, the equipment you use and the music genre and the word “minimal” came back in my mind.
“When you don’t want to find yourself playing three polyphonic minimoog split and FM pad with trance gate all on a single keyboard.”
a funny thing is, some of my favorite current music ends up being played kind of like that: one or more sequences/arpeggios and various gate driven bass and other sounds transposed via one or more CV keyboards. Build in some time to select otehr drum patterns and sequences and some free right hand time for playing things that aren’t tied to the master clock and the whole song is there. All it takes is some practice to be able to pull it off every time.
The difference is that the individual elements have been created and assembled by the composer based on their intimate knowledge of the instruments in question to suit the composition at hand rather than previously put together by someone who’s brief is to demonstrate a new product’s ‘gee whiz’ factor.
There are some formidable live arranging options out there in the world of post MIDI synths and I don’t doubt they could be put to great use by somebody so inclined to produce really great songs that aren’t entirely canned. But getting it all set up is less immediate and once it is set up *and saved* the temporary immediacy is lost as all that is ever required to set it up again is to remember which patch number it was saved as.
There is another very important difference between CV-Gate and MIDI gear for ‘our’ kind of music (as pointed out by Mr Florian A in another forum, dont know if he come’s ‘round here.) With MIDI the timing and the pitch of musical events are always stuck together: the pitch is contained in the note message which is played when it arrives, there is no easy way to get the pitch from someplace else.) With CV gate they are separate: you can trigger your bass from a drum machine but control pitch via the last key pressed on the keyboard (which can also transpose an arpeggio/sequence.)
For the most part I don’t think the old bands had any retro agenda. There was often a desire to break with the past, “Flood the Museums” (Marinetti), be modern, etc. The appeal of Japanese synths was that they were affordable. A Jupiter-4 had a lot of limitations compared to a Prophet 5, but you could get one for much much less. Kurt Dahlke sold his VW to get an MS-20 and you can probably hear it on half the relevant LPs out of Duesseldorf. As Ton points out the bands were usually ready to move on to something new: Later Der Plan records are piled high with FM synths, most of the success stories went on to fairlights and synclaviers, Warren Cann must have been only too happy to be able to set and even save tempos in BPMs instead of checking his crib notes to see that “Mr.X” required 11.42 volts on the multimeter connected to the CR-78 tempo fine tune hack.
But the genre that grew, to put it crassly, around 16th notes, analog sounds, Martin Hannet production and cold war easthetics is still appealing and the best way to handle the 16ths/analog part is still to just use that sort of gear.
i agree this is a great topic, btw, and would love to see some more insight in terms of practical production techniques.
