Listen. You buy a synth that everyone else has. It has limited authorship and control options, but you don't care because you just like the presets. Then you buy a software sequencer that everyone else has so you can control your synth that everyone else has. You program the sequencer and choose the sounds in a fashion that mirrors the few bands you desperately want to emulate. You never learn to play a synth... and why would you? Your computer will play all the notes for you. So... what the fuck are you left with when you're done? A song that everyone could do... being as that you've developed no skills. You've not attempted to learn to make your own sounds that please you. Your computer plays the synths in the same way all computers do. You are left with no originality, no uniqueness, and no validity. But... who cares? You sound just like everyone who has done the same thing... which is all of the "artists" you like, and all of your friends. No one dares question the quality or merit of your art... because that would be unkind, right? That would be judging someone's ART... right? Everyone is equal, right? Great job! Here's to the democratization of art! Art is for everyone! Exclusion is offense!

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews-full.cfm?newsid=7464

I am increasingly using this blog to address points that come up in discussion on a certain forum I frequent. I don't know if that is good or bad... or just... something.
Anyway: Latest issue.

What is MIDI for?
I'm sure someone is arching their eyebrow right now. "Surely you must know what MIDI is for, Marc." Well, yeah... you're fucking right I do. Why do I know this? Because I was using MIDI before a lot of the people whom I talk to were born. MIDI was the digital extension of a CV (control voltage) philosophy which arose from voltage control in early synthesizers. A few famous fellows I won't name got together and invented a means of controlling synthesizers which grew out of the extended functionality that computers could bring to the equation. Computers allowed a high level of control which could not be provided from control voltages... it streamlined the process... made it metric... and easy. MIDI allowed the user to control vast chains of synthesizers from one master synthesizer... allowing a great deal of timbral diversity and parametric control.
This interface was a system developed for musicians who demanded more control than CV could provide.

At first, it was very exciting for musicians to play lots of synths at once, and the initial application of MIDI was for just that. It wasn't until standalone sequencers started popping up that it began to be a truly useful tool. At the onset of computer sequencing, MIDI became extremely important in regard to the computer controlling various aspects of the sound and sequencing of each synthesizer. It was then that the functionality that had basically lain dormant since the creation of MIDI was finally put to good use.

Okay, so there we are. MIDI is great for automatic parametric control of synthesizers. MIDI is a tool with which you can control the timbre, execution, and sequencing of any given synthesizer which is MIDI compatible. Duh.

So, what's wrong with that?

Nothing. I use MIDI in a number of ways in my own studio. When I do any scoring, I use a software MIDI sequencer to control my sampler. I use a MIDI controller keyboard to sequence the parts. I use MIDI.

So why do you complain so much about MIDI?
Well, I don't complain about MIDI. I complain about electronic musicians' dependency upon it. Every time a synth comes out, especially a modern analog, everyone has to whine "OH, MAKE SURE IT HAS MIDI. MIDI IS INDISPENSABLE."
But is it really? Again, what is MIDI for?
Um, Marc... we just went over that.
Yes, but... whereas MIDI WAS indispensible in the days of early sequencers and sequencing software, there have been some other developments... namely, EXTREMELY CHEAP and POWERFUL recording devices and recording software.
Why do you need automated control over the synthesizers you can effectively and easily control with your hands and record using powerful digital recording devices?

"MIDI allows me to do things that are not humanly possible."
Fair enough. But is it indispensable to you that you have something allows you to do things that are not humanly possible in every single song you write? Every bit of music? You and everyone else who does electronic music can only do that music when you have something that allows you to do that which is physically impossible? Um, right.
Let's be clear here... MIDI allows you to automate note events and timbral changes and etc. when you are physically incapable of doing them... whether they are humanly possible or not.
Namely: MIDI control is a crutch. It allows you to record music you couldn't normally record for lack of skill, creativity, or physical ability.
Why do I know this? Because I used to sequence all of my music. I used sequencing and MIDI control to make up for inadequacies in my physical and musical abilities. If cheap recording devices had existed before cheap sequencing devices, I would have been screwed. My music would have been lame because it requires skill, physical ability, and creativity to record music without the many benefits of sequencing and automated control.
Don't tell me MIDI is indispensable. It is TOTALLY dispensable. It is only indispensable to people who are unwilling to or incapable of learning how to artistically and expressively perform their own music. Its just that there is SUCH an immediacy in MIDI that there is NOT in learning to use your hands and ears.
Don't give me "my genre of music is dependent upon the aural characteristics of MIDI programmed and sequenced sound." Do you realize how long that has been going on? Isn't it time to try something new?

Okay, admittedly... I want people to follow in my footsteps. Does that sound arrogant? It's not meant to. It's just that I found something out:
When you use technology which has a specific intent and a design which aims at that intent, you tend to do with it only what it was designed to do. What creative/unique thing do you think you're going to achieve with a MIDI sequenced groovebox? Do you realize that those things are specifically designed for you to emulate the music you listen to? They are not truly creative tools (although they can be used creatively, with effort, certainly...).
When I realized this, I stopped sequencing. What do I need quantization for? So I can sound like New Order did WAY BACK in 1985? Quantizing is a crutch, and it is such a massive genre trap that you sound like dance music no matter what genre you're doing.

Okay, I am ranting.

Primarily: I stopped sequencing the music I didn't need to sequence. Years of playing and replaying parts ineptly into a sequencer actually TAUGHT me to play better (so there is a silver lining). Now, at least in my "popular music," I don't sequence at all... and I have discovered that there is a massive liberation in not playing the game by the rules of a programming device. I am free to invent my own grooves, my own style of performance. Your expression of yourself lies in how you express yourself musically. The way you separate yourself from the masses is by exercising your own unique flaws, strengths, and expressions... not by letting a device tell you how you will perform a given phrase of music. The amount of effort you go to to learn to program a groove is FAR more than finding your OWN groove.
Do I make mistakes? Yes. Do I leave them in? Yes, I do. Why? Because that is how my arms and brain and hands work... you are hearing what I do in my music. You are hearing my strengths, my flaws, etc. What is the benefit of that? My music sounds like ME. The sum total of my mind and body is expressed in my music... and it is a unique sound... even when I am adhering to one genre or another.
Bottom line: There is freedom and identity and creativity and VERY desirable uniqueness in breaking free from the procedural chains of MIDI sequencing.

So, when I say "WHY DO YOU NEED MIDI?" I am not criticizing your choice of style, your genre, or your technology. I am encouraging you to express yourself in a manner you never will with MIDI technology.
Believe me, it's a blast.

True expression does not reside in precision at all... it lies in what your body does to express itself. Sure, everyone is clumsy and sloppy in the beginning... but with a little bit of EFFORT, you'll find out that you have something unique to offer.

I have to confess that I don't know who it was who was the first to employ the relatively post-modern notion of using an inappropriate musical instrument for the sake of using an inappropriate musical instrument in a song or recording.

The idea had a sort of heydey in the 1990s and the early aughts.

When I was terpsichore, I had an album called Quod Erat Demonstrandum. On this album was a song called "Hello, God," which was one of only two overtly spiritual songs I've ever written. Apart from also being one of the funkiest songs I've ever written (I should post it somewhere at some point, because musically it is so utterly funky and cool, I can't even deal with it), it featured a novelty.
At the time I wrote the song, I was working as an assistant manager at Kay Bee toys. It was about 1994 or so, and that was the year that a LOT of toys with digital sound producing chips were released. There were police cars which made police noises and space-guns which made space-gun noises and dolls which made dollish noises. In nearly every one, I could hear something with musical merit. So, I brought my trusty Fostex X-26 to work one day and spent my lunch break recording toys.
The resultant samples formed the basis for the song "Hello, God." There was this particular doll-laugh which was alien and extremely rhythmic. It became the foundation of the song. There were various very computery animal noises which became a lot of the instrumentation. Countoffs, sound effects, etc. became much of the rest.
So, okay... here was this song. What about it? Well, the point is that I took non-musical objects and used them in a musical way... and I did it when others had already done such things... even though when I did it, it was 15 years ago.

You can think of a lot of examples of such inclusions, I'm sure. Things that come to mind for me are the Stylophone, the Optigan, Matt Mahaffey's exceedingly cool album "Gizmodgery," which was recorded ENTIRELY with toy instruments in 2000, and Leslie Fletcher's all-miniature-instrument band.

It is a very creative concept to specifically choose to take a non-instrument, or a non-professional instrument and use it in your music. It is a post modern concept because it draws attention to the importance of process as opposed to simply the importance of the outcome.
And that is the key to novelty-instrument usage... it is a communication between you and your audience. "I am specifically using this instrument to make a point, and you are recognizing that I'm doing it... and hopefully my point is communicated." It doesn't matter what that point is... even if the point is simply "look at me using an instrument you wouldn't think would be usable in this context!"

But here's the problem with novelty: novelty ceases to be novel with exposure. Novelty familiarity DEFINITELY breeds contempt.

I am of the opinion that the post modern novelty instrument concept is played out. Part of that novelty was the surprise of the usage. In some cases it was about bringing to attention the notion that a particular instrument had musical application which exceeded its "toy" status.
Let's face it... there is only so much you can do with an Optigan before you're covering the same ground again. Ditto with the stylophone, the TB-303, and any number of Casio keyboards. They may be fun to play... the irony may be a delight... they may be cool to reference... but there is a point, if you're a musician, that you realize that they are just too musically limiting to be used as REAL musical instruments.

But what's strange is that people aren't using them with irony anymore. They're simply using them because people they idolize used them... and what's worse, they don't care if they are musically limited or not.
This is what scares me. These instruments become a sort of cultural signifier... a sort of symbol of allegiance... a non-musical statement... instead of a musical instrument. That's fine... except that people don't realize or care that that's what these things are... and they're treated as if they ARE valid musical instruments.

Subsequently, when you're me, and you're chatting with people on synth forums, you get people treating Casio keyboards with the same reverence they would treat great synthesizers. You get people treating cheap ROMplers as if they are somehow of equal validity as finely crafted and extremely expressive classic keyboards.
Does this really matter? No, of course not. But it bothers me that people don't recognize that they're choosing to laud something simply for WHAT IT IS instead of WHAT IT DOES... and to me, that is a particularly unpleasant sort of musical ignorance.

And, I guess that's what bugs me about most music technology. It is moving away from expression to functional portrayal. It's not about what you make or what you mean or the effort you went to... it's about what device you have doing what largely-favoured preset aligning with what sub-genre of music.
I hope the people who are into that realize that that is the indication of the end.

My very dear friend Chad and I were going to start a band. Okay, I guess we DID start a band. This band is called Plastic Inevitable, and our plan was to take a lot of syrupy overproduced 1970s ballads and hits and portray them in a very reductionist early 80s new wave (yeah, that's what ALL of that music was called back then... before all of the retroactively-applied subgenral pretention) electronic sound.
Anyway, the point is: I wanted to get us a couple of extremely laughable cheapo Casios for us to play. In irony. As a joke.
Why is that a joke? Well, back in my increasingly distant day, Casio was the lowest of the low. People with no money didn't even settle for Casio. Casio was a toy for children or grandmothers, or... quite simply... people who really didn't know anything.
Yeah, but now... now... people on forums are talking about Casios like they're just like everything else. Lauding them, even. Acting as if they were something important and desirable back in the day, OR acting like they are something desirable now... when they're primarily being used by hipsters in a post-modern way which has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with irony. But it isn't apparent... so the irony is lost... and people start mimicking WITHOUT irony.

So, anyway. Listen, people... the notion of using a piece of shit in your music is an old one... the novelty has abated. If you're using an instrument simply because of what it is, it means that your music probably isn't going to survive. The core of good music DOES have to be the music... start from what music you have in you and find instruments that SUIT it. Don't start by imitating some other music and simply grabbing whatever instruments they used to make it... especially when you don't get the joke, or the humor of the joke is use-worn.

Man, I am turning into a grouchy old man, ain't I. ; )

Okay, yes. I'm an old guy, and apparently, I come from a different generation of synthesizer users than most of the synthesizer users I talk to.

Here are the categories:

1. People who were around when analog synthesizers first came out, and used them.
Despite the fact that it was a new instrument, these users tended to be dissatisfied with everything it COULDN'T do, and tended to follow corporate trends as new synths came out.
2. People who remember when analog synthesizers were used, missed them when they were replaced by digital, and became nerdy worshippers of them later... and purists after that.
3. The rainbow generation who doesn't care about anything except for what a synth will do for them now. This generation also includes those who worship every synth used by someone famous that they like, OR that has any affiliation with any sort of electronic subgenre, regardless of functionality.

I am choice 2.

:::hitches up pants, sits down, takes pipe out of mouth, and gestures with cane:::
In my day, being the best was everything. You wanted to be the best at something. You wanted to be the only one who did a certain thing, and you wanted to be the best at that thing. You didn't want to imitate, and you wanted to be as completely responsible for your work as you could possibly be... in every single way. Let's call this the Prince Generation... people who wanted to write, perform, and produce their own music.
Of course, not very many people are really capable of this. I, for example, lack a lot of the skills necessary to do it. But still, that's what I aspired to. I didn't even want to collaborate. I wanted everything to come from me.
I knew other people who felt similarly... but I also knew other people who were very put off by this idea, simply because so few people are really capable of it.
In any case, most people agreed that it was best to write your own music, play your own instruments, and make decisions about how your music sounded.

Hip Hop happened. Hip Hop, while culturally important, was/is musically destructive. It is a style of music which was emotionally compelling and expressive, yet was essentially comprised of pieces of the work of other people used as a means of self expression. It's an interesting and post modern concept, and is definitely fascinating... but it never stopped. The concept that any recorded music could be used to express your own musical ideas is problematic. Who is responsible for the music when most of it, and even the inspiration for it, comes from an already established musical expression of someone else?
Regardless of any of these questions, hip hop became popular, and influenced culture. The desire to be fully responsible for one's own work fell out of favor, and the shame associated with using the work of others disappeared.
The results can be fantastic. I think of Black Eyed Peas' "Pump It." I can't get enough of the fucking song. I love it. But let's face it... it is based on that well-known guitar part. That original song defines, largely, the feel... the feel which BEPs were able to add to. Even the melody mirrors the melodic movement of the guitar. The original writer of that song basically wrote Pump It, more than the members of the BEPs. I suppose some might say "in the end, what does it matter? It's a great cover, if nothing else." I can't argue with that. I love it. But still... where is the desire to be the originator? The author? The full creative force?

Ha ha, yes, I am an objectivist, and I worship Howard Roark. : )

So, anyway: These days, no one has any shame about using the work of others as an end in their creative process.

Sidenote: It is important think about the fact that any band who writes together, or even works together, is a collaborative force. One could make the point that hip hop artists, or other artists who sample a great deal, could be thought of as members of a band that includes the original author(s) of the music, and that's fair... but one must also remember that, say, The Beatles, worked together for a common musical end. There is a different dynamic that exists between artists working together in realtime, and someone taking someone's previous work and changing it, adding to it, manipulating it to suit their end.

When I was terpsichore (http://www.myspace.com/ofcongressandmachinery), I "wrote" a song called "Nude." It was based around a VERY cool sample of the Siamese Cat Song from The Aristocats. It is still one of my favorite songs of mine, but it sits wrong with me because despite all of the cool and musical things I did with it, it isn't me because the coolest part of it is that sample. That is often the case.
I remember when I first started hearing rap on the radio. I was often delighted by it because I thought the production was so cool. Then I started finding out that the production was often the result of the songs that they were rapping over the top of. It was very frustrating.
I wonder if someone might feel that way about Nude.

When analog synthesizers came out, their interface and concept was quite complicated. It was really outside of the context of the standard musical instrument. As a result, even competent musicians had trouble understanding them, and especially using them. Many of the great musicians who used them in the 60s and 70s had people come in to program the sounds.
So, I ask you... what good was it to have a modular synth used on these great songs? Simply because of what it was? You can't really say that the musicians chose it for use in the song because of the specific sound that was used, as usually, the programmer came up with the sound after the song had been written. The musicians, which include the likes of George Harrison and Stevie Wonder, simply wanted this new amazing instrument on their songs. That's it. A novelty.
Synthesizer manufacturers of the time (yes, I'm looking at you, Robert Moog) could see that these synths were too complex for most keyboard players to really musically grasp, so they started simplifying them. This simplification was, at first, a reduction in functionality. Then, it was presets.
Presets allowed the user to access useable sounds without knowing how to program useable sounds, pure and simple.

The concept of a preset is totally contrary to the concept of a synthesizer. The synthesizer was designed to be a device which allowed the user to create and shape sound to suit their creative ends. The preset is a button you push which creates and shapes the sound for you. You don't create the sound, you merely select it. This is, at core, not an act of creation, merely an act of selection. The synthesizer wasn't designed to be a radical device which made incredible sounds at the press of a button. We already had a device like that called "the organ."

The organ is a device intended for performance. The user selects the sounds they want, and then, their performance is what makes it a musical act. The music they're performing and the way they perform it is what an organ performance is about.
The synthesizer is different. It's intent is a timbral intent. It was designed to generate incredible timbres created by the user.

A synthesizer whose design encourages the user to merely select a sound is like a paintbrush which paints pre-selected paintings for you.

Okay, I can imagine some of you are needing a reality check after that.
Granted, things have changed since 1965. It is not to say that a great song can't be created when it contains the work of a Korg engineer instead of that of the keyboard player in the band. There is something to be said for performance, and for production choice, and etc. There are more creative choices to be made than just the authorship of a timbre.

And yet, it didn't stop there, did it. It wasn't that synthesizers just had a few presets added to their functionality. Pretty soon, synthesizers became too complex for people to program AGAIN, right after some of them had started to get the hang of it... and right at this time, keyboard manufacturers added billions more presets... making synthesizers, in effect, organs for a long time.
While these devices, which eventually came to be called ROMplers, allowed programming, the programming was too complex for the user as compared to the simplicity of choosing one of the millions of presets they also contained.

Okay, so there we are... synthesizers went from a creative tool to a selectable device. But that wasn't all that happened, was it?
Companies discovered that buyers liked having their sounds designed for them. But then, they increasingly discovered that buyers liked having a LOT of things designed for them.

Drums, beats, basslines, etc. etc. etc. Keyboard manufacturers finally got to the point where they could appeal to the largest market possible, the absolute beginner up to the professional. By adding beats, effects, bass lines, chords, etc. all easily selectable and easily alterable, keyboard manufacturers basically proved that synthesizers were a product. A tool. Goods that can be purchased by anyone and used by anyone.

Without the urge on the part of the user to be responsible for their own sounds, performances, and then musical content, anyone is allowed to feel like they are "making music."
And pow, you've got Acid and Garageband. You don't have to do anything musical at all to "create music" in Garageband. A few selections, a few click-and-drags, and pow, you sound just like a musician. (or, at least, just like a musician who works at the company which makes Garageband)
Of course, a great musician can make more musical choices with programs like these, but that isn't the point. The point is, the less choice you have in your own musical creation AND ALSO the less work you have to invest AND the more choices you have which save you time and effort... the less original music you are making.
Does that mean you're not making music if you use a preset, a preset beat, etc.? No, of course not... but it is a diminishment in your own creative investment in what you're making... and that's what irritates me.

These days, there are a lot of "electronic musicians" on the internet who are making their music with presets, grooveboxes, loops, etc. That's totally cool, and some of the output is decent, if not particularly original. The problem arises when people angrily defend what amounts to their lack of musical investment as if there is no difference between someone who creates their own timbres, their own performances, etc. and them. And that is bullshit.

Ugh. Some of these same people demand to know what synthesizers [famous cool electronic band] uses... as if it were 1983, and they were all just using presets on those synthesizers that Joe-Totally-Programming-Clueless groovebox user could duplicate (and why would they WANT to?) simply by having the same device that band uses. It's repellent.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh. I certainly don't want to quell anyone's musical interest if they're starting out with grooveboxes, etc. I would hope that this would encourage people to take the reigns and be more responsible for their musical choices.

With the glut of electronic music which has been the result of the democratization of electronic music via technology, you should be trying to find the way that your music is DIFFERENT from everyone else's, and you're not going to find that using musical resources that are available to everyone every time they turn an inexpensive device on that they can also buy. Terrible sentence, but you get the point.

So, in a sort of conclusion:
Presets, etc. are not bad. They are just indicative of the largely-marketing-based journey synthesizers have taken AWAY from their original intent. This journey has resulted in keyboard players needing to have far less musical skill or compositional skill in comparison to players of other instruments, and that's sad. Most of all, it ends up diminishing creative output, and I hate that.

I think the whole analog vs. digital debate is really perpetrated by two groups:

1. The kids who falsely perceive that there is some sort of status associated with analog, and who, without experience or even decent analog synths, decry those who use digital synths and unreasonably glorify analog synths and those who use them.
2. The kids who feel shortchanged by the (mythical) concept that what they're doing isn't valid because it isn't the "best" sort of synthesis, and who embrace digital in defense of this notion that one is better than the other, or that people who use one are better than people who use the other.

The superiority of analog synths lies in a nice rich tone, and the fact that it is a professional device, and one must be a professional to use one correctly... but that's it.

The superiority of digital lies in the fact that it is usually INFINITELY more powerful, and allows much more control over the sound, as well as many more timbral options.

The lameness of analog is that it is really limited in functionality and timbre. Apart from modern analogs, analog is primitive and dated. It is imprecise, and must largely be played by hand to really exploit what features it does have.

The lameness in digital is that it is largely emulative, preset-driven, and makes up a very great deal for the user's lack of skill or knowledge.

What is lost on most younger people as they dive into this supposed debate is that they are hearing echoes of two different debates that happened many years ago. All of the hints of superiority and the rancor are basically ghosts from times when musical culture was different from now.

First, consumers in the 70s were often irritated at the limitations of analog synthesizers. They constantly had ideas about how to make an analog synth more powerful, and gave these ideas to manufacturers. Most synth manufacturers were really in it for the money at that time (Yes, you, Moog and ARP), so they just blindly bowed to whatever consumers demanded... often sacrificing the quality and craftsmanship that they had originally embraced. The result was that the demands in functionality exceeded the capabilities of analog synthesis, so manufacturers moved into digital synth production. At this point everyone let out a great cheer and began gobbling up the new extremely powerful synthesizers. Analog synths became laughable due to their limitations and narrow timbral application. Everyone jumped right on the digital bandwagon, and the prices of synths came down as a result. Companies saw the moneymaking trend and started releasing consumer model synths. The musical culture changed, and analog synths were left in the dust as obsolete and embarrassing. Digital synthesis was superior, analog synthesis was embarrassing. End of story.
There were a few stalwarts who remembered the full control of analog synths. There were a lot who remembered just how full and rich analog synths sounded. A lot of people realized they may've been too hasty in their jumping on the digital bandwagon and longed for a return to the time when synthesizers were rich-sounding musical instruments instead of preset-driven digital organs. Less than a decade after the fall of analog, people started seeking out the original analog synths... now, many of which, languishing in basements, closets, pawn shops, and garage sales. A rebellion against the digital sound arose due to its overuse and the memory of those who preceded the digital revolution. At the same time, a musical culture arose which had nostalgic elements; in which analog synths sounded good and dated in a desirable way. The tide shifted, and suddenly it was better to use analog synths than digital synths. The same sort of backlash occurred against digital with analog which had happened in opposite before, with digital against analog.

Things have changed a lot since THAT backlash happened. A lot of people don't realize that it was not a recent backlash, but one that started in the early nineties. The original analog backlash was in response to synths like the DX7, M1, and whatever 18 digital synths Roland was vomiting out.

Now, in modern times, all music is post-modern and there are many more genres one can align oneself with, regardless of synthesis preference. Digital and software synthesizers have become far more powerful, and some effort has been made to make them easier to program, and some effort has been made to make them have a more aurally pleasing sound. Modern analog synths have been produced with the functionality of digital synths.

An either-or argument just isn't possible today. In instances where they arise, it is usually the result of people's own personal motivations, some sort of perceived status, some sort of response AGAINST perceived status, or the echoes of these arguments which are long outdated.

Yes, I personally use only analog synthesizers. Is it because I think I am rich or have status or blah blah blah? No. Is it because I jumped on the bandwagon? No. The last bandwagon I jumped on was the digital one. I jumped on that bandwagon wholeheartedly... and it took me someplace I didn't want to go. I lost interest in synthesis because programming became needlessly complicated, interface became increasingly lifeless and consumer-driven, and the various cultures which inspired the presets in digital synths were not the ones that interested me. I rediscovered analog because it was how I wanted to use synthesis, and not because of any bandwagon or status or anything of the sort.
For me personally, digital synths are largely (generally) aimed at consumers. I am not a consumer, I am professional musician. I do not need a computer to play my synth for me. I do not need presets of all of the acoustic, electronic, or electro-mechanical instruments I already possess. I don't want anything emulative at all. I want a synthesizer with which I can have immediate control over all aspects, which sounds like synthesizers did when I originally fell in love with synthesizers, and that is what analog provides me with.

Many constantly chant "It's not the instrument, it's the MUSIC!"
They're wrong. Part of the generation of music comes from the interaction and interface between a person and the instrument they are using to generate the music. While there are people who write music independently of instruments, the body of songwriters and composers throughout history have used instruments to generate or aid in the generation of the music they're writing. One can't write music on an instrument without that instrument influencing their musical choices and the execution of those choices. The instrument is part and parcel of the compositional process, and there is no escaping it.

Hello, Automatic Gainsay associates:

You might know that I have another band called "Godfrey's Cordial," which is a synth-based instrumental "moogsploitation" band.
myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic

Stag Films was making a sort of retro sci-fi movie which they felt would benefit from the usage of Godfrey's Cordial songs, so I gave them access to the lot! The result is defined by this information:

The most outrageous movie ever made will now be part of the most outrageous double feature ever screened! That's right, folks, on June 26th you can catch a rare theatrical showing of everybody's fave Russ Meyer inspired cult horror comedy PERVERT! in Los Angeles at New Beverly Cinema and guess what? it's FREE!

We will be celebrating the World Premiere event of our new movie SEX GALAXY and everyone's invited to join the party.


So take a stroll along the stained red carpet, pick up a vomit bag full of 99 cent store swag and enjoy the wildest show ever created!

SEX GALAXY is a sci-fi sexploitation comedy and the world's first "green movie." Please visit their myspace page (in our top friends) and dig the trailer to see what we're talking about.


And don't forget to send a friend request so we can keep you informed about this event and others in the glorious land of the Sex Galaxy!

SEX GALAXY World Premiere and PERVERT!
Thursday, June 26th
7:30pm
New Beverly Cinema
7165 Beverly Blvd.


(one block west of LaBrea)
Los Angeles, CA
Free admission, open to the public




I'd say I'll see you there, but I can't go, unfortunately. If you're someone who lives anywhere near L.A., go! It'll be fun! Then tell me how it went!
Perhaps we can arrange so that you could pretend to be me. I will send you some of my clothes and advise your hairdresser on how to achieve my fancy look.


Love,
Automatic Gainsay

Okay, so there has been a lot of pressure. I just keep putting people off... "No, there isn't an Automatic Gainsay album. No, I'm not really working on one. I don't know if I will." No one will accept that! What is wrong with you people?

Primarily, I had something in mind for "Recondite," and it just hasn't come together like I planned. So, I kept saying to myself "Recondite can't be finished."

But the truth is, it can. None of you know what I was planning to do with that album... you just want songs. I have songs. There are a number of finished songs that I could just toss together and call "Recondite," and no one would know the difference or care!

So, I think I will make an Automatic Gainsay album. I don't think there will be many surprises on it, but at least it'll be an album.

The track list will be something like this:
Can't
What You Bought
Honest
Caroline's Pink Umbrella
As-yet-unnamed Tea Song
Beautiful (VERY old, but I just like it so much)
Everything (same age as Beautiful, but people like it live, so why not)
Departure (originally "Agnes Came Back") (from the Psst Soundtrack, but I just love it)
Anthem
Heliograph (with words)
The Good Times
Misery (this one is new! Or, it will be new. It's still very formative. Let's hope it survives!)

So, I need your help. There is this song that's been kicking around for years, and I honestly cannot tell if it is good or bad. I can't decide if it should be on the album or not. I personally like it because it is far more raw than anything I've ever done. It's sloppy but emotive. It has cool moments. I don't know. YOU TELL ME! Should this song be included on the album?

Fortune

Add your answer as a comment!

Next: Anyone know a person who is absolutely fantastic at mastering and will do it for free? ; )

P.S. What about "Luck?"

Hello, everyone.

Hey, I love eBay. I am an analog synth collector, and it is simply the best place in the history of places to acquire analog synths.

I hear a lot of people complain about eBay... but usually, their complaint is more about the PEOPLE on eBay.

I am about to complain about the people on eBay.

Dear eBay users:

1. Listen: eBay is an auction service. People like to bid on synths... they like the battle of it. They like to win. When you post your synth at the price you want to get for it, it is not an auction. It is a sale. Why waste everyone's time and your money by posting a synth ALREADY at the price everyone would have bid up to due to the market value? Haven't you noticed that synths posted at roughly their market value often DO NOT SELL? Stop wasting everyone's time and get into the spirit of things.
Also: Do not rave with enthusiasm that THERE IS NO RESERVE when you already have your stupid synth at a price which is not only market value or more... THAT is your reserve. The point of saying "NO RESERVE" is that when you start auctioning a synth at zero and there is no reserve, anyone who is the highest bidder IS CURRENTLY THE WINNER... and that is an exciting feeling that generates bidding wars. But, of course... you know nothing about that... because you're not auctioning your synth, you're selling your synth... and consequently, no bidding war will ensue, and if you're VERY lucky you MIGHT get some idiot to bid on your stupidly anti-auction priced synth.

2. Do your fucking research, moron. Before you decide to sell your analog synth, you're going to need to study eBay for a couple of months to watch pricing trends. If you see your model of synth go for some extremely high price, that is not necessarily its general worth. Auctions fluctuate... sometimes synths go for far more than their market value, sometimes less. You cannot establish the value of your synth by seeing one auction. Of course, the best way to establish the value of your synth is to put it on eBay starting at zero dollars without a reserve. If your synth is a vintage analog synth, I guarantee that it will sell for roughly what it is worth. It is not NOT going to sell, and no one is going to get a deal. They are simply too rare now for deals to happen. That is not a benefit to buyers, but it is a definite benefit to sellers.
Also, if some greedy company is selling a synth in their eBay store, they very likely do not have a reasonable price set for it. Do not base your projected sell price on prices of synths in eBay stores, EVER.

3. Don't set a stupid Buy-It-Now price. BIN is not THE LOTTERY. If you put a stupidly high price for your BIN, you just look like you're trying to scam everyone, or worse yet, you look like you have no idea what the thing is worth. In my near-decade of eBay use, I have always found that BIN works BEST if you put it at the researched market value of the synth you're selling, or slightly... very slightly... over. It INSPIRES people to take it. If you're greedy and you're hoping to make more than market value with your BIN, you're likely to be disappointed. Don't be like pawn shops who price shit as if it were gold and hope that a very ignorant person eventually comes along... that's like scamming handicapped people.

4. Your synth is not rare, and the people who want to buy it plainly know more about it than you, and they immediately know that you are a moron if you state that your synth is rare. I have been scanning eBay for synths for 9 years. 9 years ago, you could tell when a synth is rare. eBay was glutted with analog synths, and it was very apparent which ones were rare because there weren't 15 of them for auction at any given time. Find out FOR SURE if your synth is rare before you say it is rare simply because you did one search before posting it and didn't see any others.

5. DO NOT SAY "If you're here, you probably know everything about this synth, so I won't waste time talking about it." That directly translates to: "I am too lazy to type anything about this synth, and I am an ass."

5. Do you have a digital camera? Who doesn't have a digital camera? If you don't have a digital camera, or do not have a friend who will lend you one, you do not have any business selling your item on eBay. In that spirit: Have you ever bought anything on eBay? Have you ever bought anything valued at $800 or more? Were you content to promise your money towards something you could barely make out in the tiniest and shittiest single image in the history of digital imaging? No, of course you weren't. Bottom line: TAKE MANY BIG PICTURES, and POST THEM BIG. WE NEED TO SEE WHAT WE ARE BUYING.

6. Don't screw people over on shipping. There are a million synths the size of your synth for auction on eBay right now. Look for the cheapest shipping price you see among them for a synth roughly the size of yours, and THAT is probably the ACTUAL SHIPPING PRICE. I will tell you right now, your synth WILL NOT COST $75 to send. It just WON'T. Stop putting that as a shipping price! Research a reasonable shipping price. Throw in a few dollars for packing materials, and be done with it. If your shipping price is too high, intelligent bidders will adjust their bids lower to account for it. You end up breaking even ANYWAY.
Also: PAY FOR THE INSURANCE. Don't act like it is the buyer's responsibility to make sure they get the item they bought from you unbroken. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that which they bought gets to them safely. YOU ARE SENDING IT. This "well, don't look at me, it's not my responsibiilty to protect what you bought from me" attitude is stupid. Why risk the hassle for a few measly bucks when you probably already overcharged them for shipping? INSURE IT YOURSELF and do the right thing.
Pack well. Pack this way: Bubblewrap keyboard. Put cardboard around bubblewrap. Make a box that is about 3 or more (depending on weight of synth) inches bigger than the box you just made. Put the synth box inside of this box with 3 or more inches of well-packed popcorn on every side of the synth. Overstuff. Tape outer box closed very well. You're done. Remember: your goal is to make it so that the synth can be dropped in its packaging and survive. If you pack it poorly, and it is broken by the angry and violent people at a shipping service, that is not THEIR fault, but YOURS. (unless they broke it despite your good packing job... which can actually happen)

7. For the LOVE OF GOD, STOP PUTTING A VERBATIM QUOTE OF VINTAGESYNTHS.COM IN YOUR STUPID AUCTION! If you don't know the history of the synth, who cares? We, the buyers do, or should. Describe your synth and its condition and be done with it.

8. If your keyboard isn't an electro-mechanical device with hammers and tines, it is not an "electric piano." Digital pianos, while plainly electric, are not electric pianos. They are digital pianos. Most Casio keyboards are neither digital pianos NOR electric pianos. They are "keyboards."
If your device isn't a small, portable, analog, transistor organ with limited functionality, then it is not a "combo organ." None of the Roland Hammond-clone products are combo organs... they are ORGANS. Combo organs are small, brightly coloured organs with limited functionality with brand names like Vox, Gibson, Farfisa, etc. Not names like Roland, etc. "Combo Organ" does not mean any portable organ.


Okay, I'm done.
For now.