PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Ever wonder why synthesizers aren't used much in Jazz, Rock and Classical music? I think it is because people are stupid. The reason I say this is because they use organ which to me sounds like a really bad synthesizer.

Sometimes it is about cronology. Bethoven didn't have many synths to choose from. A good organ in a good room can really give a physical experience.

Also, I think there is a lot of tradition in it. If people are into synth sounds, they will likely hear their inspiration from other sources ... and thus fo in other directions. If you hear jazz and find, that you want to play jazz, then you would likely also want to sound like jazz. But I agree, synths could sometimes be an interesting addition to the sound palete of jazz.

Classical musicians usually go thru a much more rigid school than the rest of us. Practising 6-8 hours a day isn't really unusual. I have not heard of conservatories in Denmark taking in "classical synths players". So schooled classical musicians would have to remake themselves as technicians ... apart from piano players. But grand piano IS truly grand in most classical settings (IMO). Ok, so what about stuff like chemabalo (maybe spelled wrong ... lookes like a very small grand piano ... has a piezo like sound)? 1) I think you will have a hard time getting a job in a classical setting, if you substituted *00 years old classical wooden instruments with a piece of plastic. 2) I could easily imagine, that most people who play such stuff as their main instrument, have a positive feeling about the age and history of their work tool.

Just thoughts ... from a sound perspective, you may be (sometimes) right, but there is so much more to music than sound.

Never heard of Fusion?
I suppose the trouble is that it just goes against the grain for jazz purists.

What about "Moog plays Bach to Beatles"?

I guess you've never heard of Stockhausen?...

If tradition is so important in jazz then why do they use electric guitars and electric bass so often? Clearly those instruments were not around when jazz was invented.

The piano and the organ are perfect examples of newer mechanical instruments, ones in which the player has little control over the tone of the instrument.

The saxophone was invented in 1842. In 1903 Strauss wrote a piece which included saxophones. By that standard it will take another 30 years before we see synthesizers included in the orchestra. It's because people are too stupid to do something new.

I wonder why it is that so much of the truly great electronic music comes from the Britts?

Maybe after Van Halen did jump, people think they cant create a juno masterpiece

For me im a synth wh%re, what can I say, I used too have a massive collections of TONS of analog synths, after my scope card I have sold off much of my classic, but still am a VST, Scope and Hardware maniac

Cheers!

Why do people hate guitars? In all my collection of Detroit techno tracks, I only find one (Mad Mike on one of the first SID releases) that uses guitar. What do people have against strings and constantly use synths instead?

It's the lack of Violas in speed thrash metal that really ticks me off...grrr!

Hi, I can suggest to listen "Switched on Bach", where Carlos plays Bach entirely on Moog. Some other Carlos'listenig, very nice in my opinion, are Clockwork orange and Tron Soundtracks.

When Ginastera heard Toccata(based on a movement from one of his piano concerti) by Emerson, Lake and Palmer, he was very impressed.

Which people are you talking about specifically, Braincell? And do they even warrant being talked about?

i agree with immanuels chronology theory.
as well as.. some instruments just doesn't have that much to do in certain genres of music.

the accordion would sound a bit misplaced in death metal. and so on.

after all it's like saying "why does football players hate a hockey puck so much?"

LOL ... can I kck it? yes you can! can I kck it? yes you can!

electric guitars in jazz? ... to be heard! ... from there, the musician had the instrument, and then it was about exploring the instrument further ... not about learning (/buying) something different.

On 2004-12-06 10:11, braincell wrote:
... The piano and the organ are perfect examples of newer mechanical instruments, ones in which the player has little control over the tone of the instrument...

ouch, better not to be discussed with the respective classical instrumentalist.
Grand pianos aren't sampled btw

...before we see synthesizers included in the orchestra. It's because people are too stupid to do something new...

imho an orchestra is an extremely well balanced 'sound generator'.
It is very smart to leave 'the synthesizer' out there, as it would be rather restricting for the instrument 'synthesizer' to be reduced to a part in an orchestra.

I'd suggest you try to attend some real orchestra work (rehearsals, not final performances) to get an idea what those people's ideas are about.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it definetely has it's place.
At age 20 I found such stuff boring to death, but today I could almost break into tears for the sheer beauty of the 'Rhinegold' start. Fake THAT arpegged pad ...

cheers, Tom

check out frank zappa's 'francesco zappa'. 18th century music performed on a synclavier. amusing stuff, and after some getting used to, not bad at all. however, i find zappa's orchestral music where he uses the drum set, well, quite,... bad, actually. and i'm a big fan. it's just that the drum set doesn't belong in an symphonic orchestra, imho. i'm not talking timpani or glockenspiel here, but 20th century drum kit.
i guess the same would apply to a synthesizer.

hate? braincell, i've learned to appreciate your cynical and humerous, sarcastic remarks over time... but there's no hate involved. taste maybe?
besides. various of 20th century composers have used modern means of sound generators. stockhausen has been mentionned. philip glass has used synthesizers extensively (although one could argue whether his music is 'classical'). varese with his sirens. theremin...
the collective i do occasional work for champd'actioneven use max/msp. one of the latest creations was a piece for concert grand, fender rhodes, synthesizer and computer. (you see some sort of concept/time line here )

it's 'marginal' stuff, i know, but you can't expect an orchestra to perform prokofiev where the 2nd violins are replaced by an DX7, or the horn section by a Korg Karma. it would suck big time.

you ever heard of a guy named squarepusher? not all of his stuff is jazz, but some is. check it out. electronic mayhem.
zappa again (i'm sorry), he loved synths. too bad, he often isn't taken serious enough. the man made some cool jazz and great classical music.

ah well, whatever...it's OT after all. gotta sleep.

This discussion sounds weird to me. Synths have been used in jazz and funk since the 60s and 70s - everything from Moogs to Arp 2600s and classic analog vocoders were used by people like James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Roy Ayers etc. I think the Doors used Moog Taurus bass pedals and other synthetic means of getting bass sounds, while the Beatles used all manner of bizarre instrumentation and studio methods. IMHO in the 80s the use of synths actually got excessive and self-indulgent, with everyone too busy messing with buttons and knobs while not watching the taste meter. The important thing is good musical ideas and good emotional performances.. when you have that, the choice of sounds almost doesn't even matter.

I think to get hung up either way about HOW the music is made is the first step to getting away from the joy of music - listening to a quality finished piece of music while knowing it doesn't matter how it was made. Some of my favourite music was made using the cheapest equipment and most bog-standard recording methods.

Getting hung up on this stuff is as stupid as the conventional jazz critics who couldn't handle Miles Davis's 70s output (calling it worthless jungle music), or the countless thousands who never forgave Bob Dylan for using an electric guitar, or for that matter synthesizer music fans who can't tolerate the use of real/acoustic/electro-acoustic instruments.

That was a long time ago. There seemed to be a push towards synthesizers when they first came out. All you guys mentioned ancient bands. Miles Davis... dead. The Beatles have half the members dead. ELP has L and P dead! Walter Carlos has been Wendy Carlos for decades!

The newer rock bands are more like the early Beatles. Music is taking a giant step backwards. Guitar is the most popular instrument and there is no good reason for it other than tradition which perpetuates the way things are and hinders progress. I can never listen to the blues again in my life because it is too predictable and boring and much of music is like that, yet people seem to like it. A thought occured to me though; Bush got elected and then elected again so it must be because people are stupid and this goes for their taste in music too.

Makes sense

I'll bite.

I hate synths because they sound like crappy video games in an arcade. I don't like listening to Ms. Pac-Man music.

On 2004-12-07 01:31, braincell wrote:
All you guys mentioned ancient bands.

Because modern rock bands that use synthesizers and turntables and what-not (think Slipknot) aren't worth mentioning at all.

The newer rock bands are more like the early Beatles.

You missed the boat Braincell, Oasis is dead!

Seriously, folk, hip-hop, reggae and neo-industrial music are where it's at IMHO. (I hate all of it of course.)

Guitar is the most popular instrument

So can you name a single important rock guitarist under the age of 35 in the world today?

I can't.

(BTW anyone who wants to hear what jazz on electric guitar should sound like, George Benson is my recommendation.)

Bush got elected and then elected again so it must be because people are stupid and this goes for their taste in music too.

Or people are masochists. Take your pick.

Bleep bloop bleep bloop bzzzzzzzzzt bloop dee bloop!

GAME OVER

Johann