Showing posts with label Synclavier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Synclavier. Show all posts

Pet Shop Synthesis

2021 Revision 

Pet Shop Synthesis is by far my most popular blog post and still seems to be providing people with enjoyment 13 years after I wrote it. However, a lot has changed since 2008, and whilst the majority of the text remains valid, there are a few inaccuracies and quirks of formatting that left the article looking a bit tired. Thus, I have revised the text and tried to bring it a bit more up to date. It's still not perfect, but I will endeavour to iterate and tweak it to keep improving.

Unfortunately I have had to turn off comments for this and all my other posts as this article seems to attract spam on a daily basis otherwise.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The democratisation of music creation

Whilst reading an interview with the group Blancmange (circa 1984) one statement by Stephen Luscombe struck me as being highly prophetic.

The article in question comes from an early music technology magazine and centres on the groups use of the then revolutionary UMI 2B sequencer. The UMI was a MIDI interface that allowed a BBC ‘B’ computer to act as a 16-track sequencer. This does not sound exciting now, but back in 1984, the only alternative was to use systems such as the Fairlight CMI or the NED Synclavier. When you consider the BBC ‘B’ cost around £399 and a Fairlight £25,000, you can see why the UMI caused such a stir. Vince Clarke owned a Fairlight back in 1984 but quickly saw sense and switched to the UMI and Casio CZ-101 synthesizers; he never looked back.

“It’s an interesting concept, and a very levelling one, to think that over the next few years both amateurs, would be pop stars, and actual recording artists might be using exactly the same type of set ups to create music, and that the days of wistfully wondering whether the only difference between yourself and your idols is a massive recording budget are numbered.”

As well as being one of the longest sentences I have ever read, this quote is a very accurate summary of exactly what would happen over the next ten years. Yet this statement is more problematic for me than it might seem at first glance. I did indeed spend a great deal of time listening back to my compositions in the late 80’s thinking: “If only I had a Fairlight CMI I could be the next Jarre”. The problem was obviously the equipment I used and if I had the money, I could be a recoding artist.

However, in the same article Stephen Luscombe hits the nail on the head when he says, “It’s the democratisation of music really, which is good. But even with computers it’s still the same thing of ‘shit in, shit out’. At the end of the day it’s what you put in to the thing that counts.”

The incredible democratisation of music technology which has occurred over the last 20 years is taken for granted by new comers but is still a thing of wonder to those of us who remember dreaming of DX7’s and Fairlights. Yet the flip side of cheap professional quality recording equipment is the realisation that you can’t accomplish the same results as your idols. When music technology was prohibitively expensive, we could still convince ourselves that our talent was only restricted by the fact that we had no money. Now I know differently.

Yet on reflection I’d still rather have my bedroom filled with DX7’s, D50’s, microphones and a super computer and produce crap music than to simply dream of something that I might never experience. You never know I might still write that number 1 album.