Category Archives: opinion

Opinion – Is the iMac Pro Worth the Price?

The new iMac Pro at Apple WWDC 2017. Image courtesy of Apple.

The new iMac Pro at Apple WWDC 2017. Image courtesy of Apple.

Oh no, not another “Mac versus PC” thinkpiece! Rest assured, I don’t want to write one any more than you want to read one, so I’m going in a bit of a different direction here. My main thesis: Whether the admittedly pricey iMac Pro is “worth it” to you as a creative has a lot more to do with you that it does with the machine itself.

Back at World Wide Developer’s Conference in June, Apple announced the new iMac Pro, which would be available in December – now just around the corner as we make our holiday wish lists. The base model weighs in with an 8-core Intel Xeon processor, 32GB DDR4 RAM, a 1TB SSD, Radeon Vega graphics with 8GB of VRAM, four USB-C Thunderbolt ports, a 27″ 5K display, and more. The base model also costs $5,000. From there, you can get much crazier, with 10-core and 18-core CPUs available, up to 4TB SSD, and 128GB RAM. Renowned engineer and pro audio blogger Bobby Owsinski calculated the price of a maxed-out machine to be $17,300.

The base model is plenty for audio production and most video editing, even with a lot of use of something like Adobe AfterEffects. So in what follows I’ll largely have it in mind; the higher-end configurations seem geared towards intense visual applications such as 3D animation and VR development.

Even the base model has led a lot of musicians, producers, gamers, and general computer enthusiasts to cry “Overpriced!” How it stacks up next to comparable Windows PCs is something you can find as many conflicting opinions about online as you have patience to slog through. Some argue that in fact a comparable PC is pretty close. There are Apple loyalists saying, “Please, take my money!” On the other hand, we all have those serious geek friends (well, I do) that will tell you all about the 32-core PC they built for change from redeeming Mountain Dew bottles, and snicker about how only n00bs pay the “Apple tax.”

Side note: When people laugh at what I’ve paid for Macs over the years, they’re almost always in the build-your-own-PC club. Buy a media creation-class Windows machine retail, and prices  get a lot more in the same ballpark. So there are symmetry issues out of the gate about the value of your time, whether you’re willing and able to build a machine, et cetera, et cetera.

But I won’t go down that rabbit hole, because not a damned bit of this matters.

Okay, it may matter to the extent that if you can’t afford a $5,000 computer, period, there’s a natural impulse to slag anything at that price point as not worth it. There’s an old story about a fox and some grapes that speaks to this point. In this case, budget for what you can afford and squeeze every last drop of functionality out of it. I haven’t upgraded in a few years myself – I’m writing this article on a late-2012 just pre-Retina iMac. On that plus an early Retina MacBook Pro from the same era, I do all my audio production, video editing, and managing this website. ‘Nuff said.

Back to the point, the film composer Hans Zimmer once told me that whether it’s a DAW, synth, computer, microphone, or any sort of gear, really, the best tool is the one you know. If you’ve used and been productive on Macs for years, and the performance increase of an iMac Pro will mean you can get more done more quickly (especially if it’s billable), that experience is going to stick with you a lot longer than the pain of the initial expenditure. If you’re a professional with deadlines, the productivity time lost to switching over to a PC probably outweighs the allure of getting more specs for less money.

And while I myself am a lifelong Mac user, I’d offer the same advice to anyone entrenched in the PC world who might be tempted by the sexy all-in-oneness of the iMac Pro.

I’m not saying there are never good reasons to switch platforms. Just that given the performance of current multi-CPU machines, “grass is greener” speculation should not be among them. If the workflow of an OS is getting in your way, however, that’s a reason to see how the other half lives — I’ve met plenty of dyed-in-the-wool PC and Mac users who say that their platform of choice just “thinks” the way they do and that attempts to use anything else have always been frustrating.

Many pros tend to de-emotionalize their computer purchases as well. Instead of calculating how many GHz they’re going to get on Mac versus PC for the money, they make calculations like: How many years do I intend to use this machine? During that time, how much billable work will I do on it? At the same time, how much can I depreciate it per year and claim that on my tax return? That all figures into the big question on the other side of the equals sign: At what point will this machine have paid for itself and be a profit center? Savvier studio managers, engineers, and producers think the same way about consoles, sexy vacuum tube compressors, and yes — synths. By this type of analysis, an iMac Pro could make a whole lot of sense for a whole lot of people.

Don't be this guy. Go make some music instead.

Don’t be this guy. Go make some music instead.

It all comes down to this: Professional creatives and even devoted hobbyists are concerned more with the stuff they’re making, the money they’re making doing it, and/or the artistic satisfaction they’re getting out of it. They’re less concerned with some other side of the gear fence where the grass is allegedly greener. I’d go so far as to say that if you’re spending a lot of time on forums arguing about Mac versus PC bang-for-buck, Pro Tools versus anything else, et cetera, then that – not creating music or media – is your actual “thing.”

Why I Love Working With Studio One – What About You?

I’m an old guy compared to a lot of people in this industry, I was 51 last birthday.

The older I get the fewer things impress me, or even more enchant me. You would think running blogs for nearly a decade would be a dream, I get to play with a lot of gear, but perhaps like chocolate, if you get to eat more than you can imagine you start to hate it, if not you at least become immune to another ‘amazing’ new product.

I say that because when I was first shown Studio One I wasn’t impressed, it seemed messy, confusing, certainly not as clean as Pro Tools which I have been using for nearly 20 years. I downloaded the demo, looked at the screen and thought, better the devil you know, shut Studio One and went back to Pro Tools.

Then over time Pro Tools continued to frustrate me, everything seemed so hard, not because I didn’t know what I was doing, but because I’d be halfway through a song idea, Pro Tools would crash and an hour later and troubleshooting any enthusiasm for the song had gone. Then I thought, there has to be a better way?

Around the same time one of the PreSonus team gave me a beta copy of Studio One 3, it looked and felt sharper and to be honest I had got to the point of thinking ‘what have I got to lose?’

This time I pushed past the inertia of the unfamiliarity and started to write a song. I dragged in an instrument, then a reverb and suddenly thought this DAW is agile, easy and holy sh*t it hasn’t crashed!

From that moment I was smitten with Studio One, the ease of use was a far greater pull than than the inertia of unfamiliarity and fear of having to learn a new DAW. Studio One was a songwriters dream; easy and powerful – in many ways transparent. What you need from anything you use in your creative process is for it to stay out the way and for me Studio One does that.

There are many great features in Studio One that make it a powerful DAW, it’s a list as long as your arm, but I love Studio One mainly for that one reason, it helps me get on with being creative without getting in the way.

That one thing for a creative is worth its weight in gold.

That’s why I love working with Studio One. What is your one reason? Please say in the comments.

PreSonus Faderport 16 – Is Bigger Better?

I think I need to get something off my chest, it all stems from the release of the PreSonus Faderport 16, it’s not about the product, but the various responses in different forums.

On Facebook someone had commented, “Faderport 16; bigger is better!” The comment is unhelpful for a couple of reasons; the first reason is for anyone who already owns a Faderport 8 they will think they have wasted their money buying a Faderport 8 and should have waited to buy a Faderport 16. It’s not nice to think you’ve wasted your money, when in fact 5 minutes before you were content with your purchase. Let me be clear you haven’t wasted your money.

Which brings me to my second point about the comment ‘bigger is better.’ Well, it’s not better, it’s not worse either, it’s just different. For some, the extra faders are going to be a help, but I have the Faderport 8 and I am as happy with it as I was before the new announcement – mainly because it happens to fit on my desk perfectly. One comment suggested I should be unhappy now the Faderport 16 is announced, I’m not.

Bigger isn’t better; choices are better. The Faderport range alongside the other mixers and controllers in the range is choice, PreSonus have given us plenty of options. There won’t be one to fit every need, but there’s probably one that gets close to meeting your need.

The comment also assumes that everyone has the budget for a Faderport 16 who owns a Faderport 8. Many people don’t and so a unit that has the same features but fewer faders is perfect.

Perhaps you have seen the PreSonus Faderport 16 and feel aggrieved that you were the first in line to get a Faderport 8.

Well, that’s the price of being an early adopter, the chance (and being a technology product, the certainty) that at some point in the not too distant future there’s going to be a better, cheaper, different version. If you want to avoid the chance of this happening, then don’t buy stuff and certainly don’t be ‘first!’ 

The Faderport 16 is a fantastic controller, and it will find a lot of users in studios around the world. The idea that PreSonus, or any other brand for that matter, should freeze development or publish product roadmaps to future-proof our buying choices is absurd.

Have I written this to defend PreSonus?

Nope, I’ve written it in defence of sanity. If you don’t like things changing fast and facing the probability of this year’s version getting superseded by something that is going to have more features and cost less, then take up a profession or hobby that doesn’t change very often, something like cricket or gardening perhaps?

Discuss..

Musicianship and Modular

There’s no question that modular synthesis has lowered the barrier to entry for droves of people interested in synthesizers and sound design. There are the financial reasons: A modular (especially Eurorack) system can be built up a paycheck at a time in very affordable increments, as opposed to spending $1,000, $2,000, or much more on an all-in-one “slab” synth or workstation.

Then there’s the spirit that all comers are welcome: Sequencers, arpeggiators, random event generators, modules that convert cosmic rays or SETI telemetry into CV information, and more reinforce the democratic ideal that anyone can make music — or at least, cool sounds. By contrast, slap even a couple of octaves of traditional black-and-white keys on something and you imply that the player has to know how to use them, at least a little. The “West Coast” school of synthesis, whose patron saint is Don Buchla, famously held that the timbral possibilities of synthesizers were artificially and arbitrarily constricted by the 12-note keyboard interface. The “East Coast” school, by contrast, thought that synthesis’ best chance of success was tied to integration with existing musical paradigms, e.g. you could sell a Minimoog in a music store as something a gigging keyboardist could perch atop their Hammond or Rhodes. In a comment I never published until now, Mark Mothersbaugh of DEVO pointed to his Memorymoog as I was visiting is studio in 2009 and said, “It’s really sort of a glorified organ,” flagging a West Coast leaning. 

So what I want to consider in this piece is: How much should synth enthusiasts, particularly modular synth enthusiasts, consider a baseline knowledge of music theory — melody, harmony, orchestration, arrangement — important? 

I’ll give full disclosure about my own bias: I’m an East Coast kind of guy, an ’80s kid raised on Thomas Dolby, Human League, and Depeche Mode. 

As a teenager I gigged with professional cover bands in venues I technically wasn’t of legal age to be in, because I could not only play, but also make the tunes “sound like the record.” But I recognize that’s not the only point of entry into synthesis, and again, that democratization and access have been huge boons of the modular phenomenon.

That said, while attending the Superbooth and Knobcon synth conventions this year, I noticed a particular trend at both: The exhibitors that drew the largest crowds tended to have (A) some kind of keyboard interface at their booth, and (B) an audio demo that had a modicum of melody and rhythm. That could be as simple as a wormy techno bass line or Vangelis-like swelling pad, but it was something.

By contrast, and I won’t name names, some booths were manned by folks who could talk with great erudition about synthesis and probably particle physics, but their audio output consisted largely of drones, glitches, and what I personally experienced as unlistenable noise.

I’m not denying the existence of great experimental and ambient electronic music that’s all about breaking the rules of harmony, melody, and rhythm. I’ve been engaged by many such evolving soundscapes, and the best of them had an emotional curve that developed in such a way as to imply that the composers certainly knew which rules they were breaking. I guarantee that artists such as Eno, Richard Devine, and DEVO do, even at their most “outside.” I know because I’ve asked them.

The neuroscientist and musician Daniel Levitin (author of the New York Times best-seller Your Brain on Music) holds that for physiological reasons, the most engaging music strikes a balance between meeting listeners’ expectations and delivering surprises. I’d add that balance is best struck if you’re at least moderately versed in the musical conventions in which the expectations lie.

Also supporting this view is that lately, there has also been a surge in products that help the not-traditionally-trained synthesist create musical sounding riffs, arpeggios, and chord progressions that would satisfy any ruler-wielding piano teacher. The NDLR and TheoryBoard (covered in last week’s New Gear roundup) are just two of many examples.

I’d like this editorial to be the beginning of a conversation rather than the end, so what do you think? Should all modular enthusiasts put some effort into learning music theory, or does any view other than “anything goes” amount to “get off my lawn”?

Why Arranger Keyboards Matter

Yamaha Genos

Yamaha Genos

Arranger keyboards are characterized by their automatic accompaniment styles, which are essentially multi-part MIDI riffs that follow your chord changes, adding not just a drum beat but several virtual musicians worth of backing band as well. Their feature sets and price points range from basic accompaniment and easy-play features found on some $149 Costco impulse purchase to the $6,000-plus Yamaha Genos shown above, a songwriting and performance monster machine that can basically sound like anything and do anything. Arrangers are also some of the most maligned and least understood keyboards among many pros.

The Lowrey Cotillion D-575 organ (1981), a popular forerunner of the arranger keyboards of today.

The Lowrey Cotillion D-575 organ (1981), a popular forerunner of the arranger keyboards of today.

Blame it on the Bossa Nova button. Arrangers’ reputation for “cheese factor” is a direct outgrowth of the home console and spinet organs of the 1970s through the early ’80s. Walk through a mall during that era, and you would likely come upon a dais occupied by an organ replete with “one man band” features that may be rudimentary by today’s standards but that never failed to amaze in the hands of the inevitable mulletted demo wizard. You too could play along with the equivalent of the CBS Orchestra — or maybe at least Lawrence Welk’s outfit — in your living room! Heck, Australian songwriter and inveterate synth geek Gotye wrote a love letter to the whole concept. (Yes, the Lowrey Cotillion is an actual thing and he actually used a ton of its sounds in the tune.) Even when a sci-fi drama with as much gravitas as Orphan Black wants to throw in a little kitsch and comic relief, it brings out the arranger keyboard — in that case a Korg Pa-600 played by “sestra” clone Allison.

Korg Pa-600 Arranger Workstation

Korg Pa-600 Arranger Workstation

Despite their admitted use entertaining the sorts of people that return conspicuously often to the shrimp cocktail at the cruise ship buffet, a good-quality arranger sounds fantastic and is an incredible music-making tool in the right hands. But I’m going out on an even longer limb:

Properly understood, arranger keyboards have more in common with Ableton Live than with just about anything else.

Specifically I’m thinking of Ableton Live’s Session View, where audio and MIDI clips can be, ahem, arranged, triggered, processed, and repurposed in real time. Session View is so open-ended that there are almost as many ways to use it as there are skilled Live producers, but a common application is that during a dance set, how the performer must “work the room” is full of variables. A song section that was only supposed to last a few bars might really be doing the trick and therefore need to be repeated indefinitely as it’s varied. Those who perform live with Live often use channels in the Session View to stack up different intros, fills, main song variations, outros, and other arrangement building blocks.

The performer playing live on an arranger keyboard is often in a similar situation, for which the instrument provides similar tools. If playing solo, using backing tracks of fixed length gives you no options when the crowd really does (or doesn’t) want three more rousing choruses of “Sweet Caroline.” Hence, arrangers have not just styles, but style sections triggered by buttons.

The Style Control section on the Yamaha Genos features three intros, four main variations, auto fill and manual break options, and three endings.

The Style Control section on the Yamaha Genos features three intros, four main variations, auto fill and manual break options, and three endings.

Not unlike Session View, these typically involve a number of different arrangement blocks: intros, main sections, endings, fill-ins, etc., that you can switch between to build a song or perform live. Song sections usually go from simple to “busy” as you progress through the options. On many arrangers from mid-market up, you can also edit your own variations on the factory presets for all this stuff, and edit the sounds they play in synth-like ways, plus add audio effects. Provided the machine has great sounds, if you don’t find a factory style with enough cred for your take on dubstep or death metal, you can create one.

Now start to imagine each of those sections as a channel in Session View, and each of those buttons as a clip launcher, and the parallel becomes obvious. Of course you can do more at one time in Ableton, as it’s software and therefore open-ended. On the other hands, because an arranger’s styles and subsections are all really just MIDI loops driving the keyboard’s internal sounds (though some arrangers offer audio-file-based styles as well), they’re more manipulable than audio loops in many respects.

So that’s my manifesto on why arrangers are a lot hipper than you might think. They essentially give you a needle-drop riff library that you can (usually) customize even further, and let you throw these “molecular” chunks of music around in real time, intensifying or utterly changing the mood of a performance as the crowd demands.

This is just one aspect of arrangers but for my money, it’s the defining one. Next time I talk about them, we’ll tackle the subject of articulations on instrument sounds — another thing arrangers are very deft at doing in real time.

Opinion – Let’s Watch Our Language!

I attended both Superbooth in Berlin and Knobcon in Chicago this year, and both were very modular-centric. They were brimming with Eurorack (and some 5U) makers both nascent and established, both large and small, and one thing struck me: In spite of the incredible diversity of modules and design philosophies on display, this seemingly chaotic community had it more together about standardized terms than what we might call the more traditional electronic keyboard industry.

I refer to the fact that different manufacturers sometimes use different words to refer to what are essentially the same operating modes, parameters, and categories of instruments. At the root of the phenomenon is the mandate of branding. Branding is not in itself bad; it’s natural and usually necessary for a brand to distinguish itself from its competitors in ways that are concise and easy to understand. In ten years of being an editor at Keyboard magazine (seven of those as editor in chief) and about the same amount of time doing freelance writing on both the journalistic and marketing sides of the business, I also came to understand that manufacturers want to preach to someone other than the in-the-know enthusiasts who form the choir. They want to communicate a holistic music-making experience to newcomers, and they want to do so in language they see as more benefits-based and less technical.

But when marketing departments stray too far from touting the benefits of their product versus their competitors’ and instead tread into co-opting and changing words that should merely be descriptive and instructive, those newcomers get confused. As for the enthusiasts and the initiated, keyboard players have something of a consensus about vocabulary and it’s bigger than any one company. I don’t mean to be churlish — over the years I’ve reviewed every major manufacturer’s products, gigged with them, recorded with them, and loved many of them. So I won’t call anyone out.

What I will do is offer my from-the-hip glossary of what I take that consensus to be. I actually care less about which words we choose than about us all being on the same page, and I recognize that no vocabulary is static. But enough with the disclaimers …

  • A single group of settings (usually saved with a name or at least a number) meant to create a single type of instrument sound is a patch, which originated with patching modular synths. Program is also fine.

  • A multi-timbral combination of patches or programs meant to stack sounds or assign them to different places on the keyboard is a multi or maybe a combi. (Performance, on the other hand, is what a human being is supposed to do with an instrument.)

  • Multi-timbral means something can play more than one patch (on different MIDI channels) at the same time. The standard is up to 16 at once. I don’t like polytimbral because of the possible confusion with polyphony.

  • A voice is a single audio stream or synthesis signal chain (such as oscillator to filter to envelope) within a patch. It’s also a unit of polyphony. Though a different sense of voice – synonymous with patch or program – does have a legitimate history in organ terminology.

  • Polyphony should almost always be measured in voices, not notes. If a single patch on a 128-voice sampling synth uses two voices all the time, then you’d in fact get 64 notes of polyphony. In sample-based synths, stereo sampling normally doubles the voice usage, so patch that used two stereo voices constantly would net you 32 notes.

  • Exception to the above 1: Patches in sample-based synths might not use all their voices all the time and might be good at re-allocating them, e.g. using a voice for the attack of a piano, which then becomes available again as soon as that attack dies out.

  • Exception to the above 2: Many analog synths play the same number of notes regardless of whether the patch uses one, two, or more oscillators.

  • Exception to that exception: Some analog synths (famously the Korg Mono/Poly) have a choice of voice assignment modes, offering a give-and-take between oscillators per note and notes played at once.

  • By the way, analog means the thing is actually using analog circuitry to generate sound, not just that it has lots of knobs and sounds “retro.” A synth like this with digital (or software) guts must be clarified as virtual analog.

  • To be called a synthesizer, it’s not enough that a keyboard can imitate a variety of preset instrument sounds. It has to let you get inside the sound and edit deep aspects of it such as waveforms, filtering, the mix of oscillators, and modulation via things like LFOs and envelopes. Just having something like tone control and basic vibrato doesn’t go deep enough to warrant the term either.

  • Only a keyboard that has a multi-timbral onboard MIDI sequencer/recorder (and maybe audio recording as some do), and thus lets you create a complete musical production without any other gear besides your speakers or headphones, can be called a workstation.

  • Any keyboard that (A) plays automatic accompaniment selected by names of various musical genres, (B) does so with multi-instrumental parts, not just drum patterns, and (C) follows your left-hand chord changes via either full fingering or some sort of easy-play shortcut, is an arranger.

  • An arranger workstation combines the features of an arranger and a workstation.

  • A digital piano is a keyboard primarily focused on acoustic and electric piano sounds, with at least 73 or 76 but usually 88 keys, and they’re usually weighted. It might also have other good sounds. Stage pianos are a subset focused on portability, and therefore usually lack the built-in speakers of their home-dwelling counterparts.

  • A drawbar organ intended chiefly to create the sound of vintage tonewheel organs (which used a rack of spinning metal discs next to pickups to generate sound), but that uses any other, more modern means to do so, is a clonewheel. The term has no derogatory connotations, though simply saying “organ” might communicate more effectively with, say, the church market.

This is neither a complete nor perfect list, there are instruments that overlap categories, and so on. But within this framework or something like it, there’s still plenty of room for brands to distinguish their [insert type of keyboard here] from their competition, but with additional clarity that I think customers will ultimately reward. Now wasn’t that easy?

Have Computer Based MIDI Sequencers Improved In The Last 20 Years?

I wonder what you first computer based MIDI sequencer was? The one that turned me on to the possibility of using a computer to make music was C-Lab Creator/Notator on the Atari ST. I had previously been smitten by a Roland MC500 MKII midi sequencer that looked a little like a cash register, but it was rock solid and fantastic for live work.

Then in the mid 80s computers started to drop in price and MIDI sequencing with computers began to go mainstream. When in 1985 Atari created the ST with built in MIDI ports, this made things a lot easier and soon it seemed everyone was using either an Atari ST or a Mac based MIDI sequencer.

Around the same time, many manufacturers were selling low priced multi-timbral sound generators like the Roland MT32, the Yamaha FB01 and the at the end of the 80s the EMU Proteus. With a relatively low cost of entry (for the time) one could have a computer, MIDI controller and multi-timbral sound generator – it was heaven!

As I say, my weapon of choice was C-Lab, others chose the Steinberg software, but for me Creator was simply amazing.

Some of the highlights were the ability to create patterns quickly using different loop lengths, for example; one could create a one bar loop of hi-hats, a two bar loop of kick, an eight bar loop of bass and so on. Each track in the part could have different quantize values, groove, compression and more. Routing the tracks to various instruments was a cinch.

Once the patterns were created they could then be arranged into a song in a simple list view; one could also see the arrange window in a timeline view and also in this timeline one could then include additional parts that didn’t fit into the pattern loop based format.

20 years later and not a lot seems to have changed to the core sequencer part of DAWs.

Perhaps there is not a lot to change, but when DAW creators announce new features to their DAW such as arrange, or loop based pattern creation as if they’ve just discovered fire then one has to wonder if we’ve come that far in the last few decades?

I’m not talking about the amazing plug-ins we can use to recreate our favourite synths or samplers but the core sequencing part.

If I have a gripe about modern MIDI sequencing is how much bloatware there is, and yet some of the fundamental issues don’t get resolved. For example timing – perhaps I’m looking back with rose-tinted spectacles, but I recall that the Atari ST had rock solid timing. 

As I researched this article I did find myself considering a purchase of an Atari ST and Creator from eBay – but perhaps it’s nothing more than reckless nostalgia, a bit like wondering what your high school love is doing these days.

What was your first computer based MIDI sequencer and do you think the MIDI sequencing element of modern DAWs has improved? What would you like to see, how do you think things could be improved?

Discuss.

25 Songs Every Synth Lover Should Hear And Why – Russ Hughes Gives His Picks

Expert site founder Russ Hughes cut his teeth programming synths in the early 80s.  Here is an article that was first published on Pro Tools Expert where Russ gives 25 songs every synth lover should hear and why.

I make no secret of the fact of my love for synths; perhaps it was because this was the music that influenced me in my teens. When it comes to music, I’m glad I was born in the mid-60s and was around for the birth of UK synth-pop.

Here are 25 tracks with synths in them that I love and why, if you have not heard them all then check them out. I guess there are some missing that would be on your list, but as with every list some drop off the bottom.

25 songs that every synth lover should hear and why.

Just Can’t Get Enough -Depeche Mode
The opening riff, the bass line, the rhythm parts, the arp – need I say more?

Released – 7 September 1981

The Model (Das Model) – Kraftwerk
German synth pioneers were way ahead of many others. Their use of synths in such an understated way is a pleasure to behold – this is one of many tracks that could have made a list, released in 1978 and still sounds great now.

Released – 1978

Only You – Yazoo
Vince Clarke is one of the founding fathers of synth pop. This track is a lesson is sequenced synth music and is a truly beautiful arrangement and was made way before presets and MIDI-based DAWs.

Released – 15 March 1982 

Don’t Go – Yazoo
The second entry for Yazoo and shows the energy that possible with a synth-based track – highlights are the claps and of course the opening riff.

Released – 1982

Enola Gay – OMD
Right from the off the pretty hectic pace of this track, the use of subtle synth layers, the beautiful woodblock sound that runs throughout this pop hit about dropping the H-Bomb makes it a classic.

Released – 1980

Love Action – The Human League
From the outset the synths in this track are the star – the oww synth sound kicks off the track like a brooding alien pulse, and then we get a nice tight synth bass. Listen in headphones for the ultra-stereo arrangement.

Released – 27 July 198

Tainted Love – Soft Cell
The combination of some synths soaked in reverb and others dry as a bone along with the voice of Marc Almond made this a monster synth love song in the 80s.

Released – 1981

Rock Me Amadeus – Falco
Now, this sounds dated, but the use of fat synth stabs in the riff along with the drum sequence all weaving around the vocal makes this a pop synth classic.

Released – 16 June 1985

Jump – Van Halen
The massive synth brass pad sound announcing this rock song is the star of this track, everyone trying out brass sounds in music stores played this riff. Of course don’t forget the synth solo in the middle 8, pure 80s synth magic.

Released – December 21, 1983

Ghosts – Japan
While many were reaching for zippy pop sounds this track shows just how versatile the synth can be, no drums just brooding synths. The tight synth stabs that appear in the track are beautiful.

Released – March 1982

Bronski Beat – Smalltown Boy
One of the many tracks in the 1980s to feature the plodding bass synth part, but Bronksi Beat brought something uniquely real to their tracks with the voice of Jimmy Somerville.

Released – 1984

Stephen Duffy – Kiss Me
Every club in the mid-80s was playing this track, you can hear the use of samples in the voice at the start, but the syncopated synth and rhythm are a master class in synth programming.

Released – 1982

1999 – Prince
In much the same vein as ‘Jump’ the star of this track is the massive synth sound that permeates throughout the entire song, just imagine this song without the synth riff.

Released – September 24, 1982

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) – Eurythmics
There are a lot of theories about the synths making the riff on this track; many think it was an Oberheim OB-X, setting that aside the synth riffs are the hero of this song, that takes a lot when Annie Lennox is singing.

Released – 21 January 1983

Alison Moyet – Love Resurrection  
The combination of synths with real instruments makes the entire ‘Alf’ album a masterpiece, crafted by Swain and Jolly. Highlights in this track are the clav type synth and the organ in the first verse.

Released – June 1984

New Order – Blue Monday
A lesson in synth minimalism – the synth bass on this track drives along with the simple drum part, keeping the listener hanging for 2 minutes before the vocals start. Classic!

Released – 7 March 1983

Time After Time – Cyndi Lauper
I was torn over this and ‘True Colors’, both tracks show how to use synth pads, they sit there as the bed that the entire track sits on without being mushy. Listen to the way the synth works with the guitar on ‘True Colours’, it’s simply beautiful.

Released – January 27, 1984

Pop Muzik – M
If you ever have any doubt about synths being funky, then this 1979 track from ‘M’ shows how to do it. From the synth bass, the arps, use of synth rhythm and incidental synth part made this a huge hit.

Released – 25 March 1979

Cars – Gary Numan
Apparently, Gary Numan found a Moog synth sitting in a rehearsal room, played it and the rest (as they say) is history. If that story is true, then I’m glad people leave things lying around – Numan brought an almost alien sense to the synth world. This track is one of many of his that could have made this list. The use of the synth lead part riffing with the drums is pure synth genius.

Released – 21 August 1979

Enjoy The Silence – Depeche Mode
From the pop riff of ‘Just Can’t Get Enough’ to this more grown up Depeche Mode in ‘Enjoy The Silence’ shows just what masters these guys are of synth based music.

Released – 16 January 1990

The Robots – Kraftwerk
Not only cool synth programming but some vocoder to boot. This tightness of this track is a lesson in synth programming; it doesn’t seem to have a hair out of place.

Released – 1978

Are Friends Electric – Tubeway Army
If you ever thought that synth music was rock solid timing quantized to within one inch of its life,  then this track will prove you wrong, but even with the drifting rhythm, this is a classic synth track.

Released –  19 May 1979

West End Girls – Pet Shop Boys
Just listen to the bass line. Tightly programmed synth bass and drums, often using the hottest synths and samplers of the time, love or hate the Pet Shop Boys their contribution to synth pop is undeniable. 

Released – 9 April 1984

Wood Beez – Scritti Politti
Super tight, samples everywhere but the entire album is a work of synth art, it was recorded in some of the biggest studios of the time and is full of Synclavier. You might hate it as over-produced 80s synth pop, but it is worth a listen, if for no other reason to see how much you could throw at an album.

Released – December 1983

Vienna – Ultravox
The thunder sound is apparently a Synare electronic drum; other sounds include an Oberheim, an Elka string synthesiser and a Roland CR-78 drum machine. Vienna is 80s synth pop at its best.

Released – 9 January 1981

https://open.spotify.com/embed/track/0qi4b1l0eT3jpzeNHeFXDT

Are these the best 25 synth songs?

So there are 25 every synth lover should hear and why… so what’s missing from the list?

Welcome to Synth Expert – A Greeting from the Editor

Welcome to the new Synth Expert website, where you will find news, reviews, and how-tos about all things synthesizer. I’m your host, Stephen Fortner. I’m a lifelong keyboard player and synth enthusiast, and got my start in music technology journalism when Keyboard magazine published a writing sample I had sent them in the late 1990s. I accepted a job there as the technical editor at the beginning of 2006 and became the magazine’s editor in chief in 2009, a role in which I remained until I decided to move on to seek new adventures at the end of 2015.

At the 2017 Winter NAMM Show, Russ Hughes, founder of the Production Expert group and its longest-running site, Pro Tools Expert, approached me about wanting to add a synth-focused site to the “Expert” stable. After a duly diligent amount of reflection, I knew that this was the major new adventure I had been looking for. I saw a gap in media serving musicians who use synthesizers. Some sites had excellent information but skewed towards one specific musical subculture or another. Some sites aggregated very click-worthy tidbits from around the web but were short on original content. And the magazine I’d loved since I was about ten years old ceased publishing a stand-alone print product as of the April 2017 issue.

For all these reasons and more, it’s my intention that Synth Expert become a “big tent.” Analog and digital. Hardware and software. Mono and poly. Keyboard synths and modular gear — and the musicians who prefer one or the other. Whether your idea of a synth hero more closely resembles a Herbie Hancock, a Richard Devine, a Jordan Rudess, a Deadmau5, a Timbaland, or a Jean Michel Jarre, my fondest hope is that as the site adds more and more content in the coming weeks and months, you’ll find things here that will keep you coming back.

That’s not to say we want to be, or can be, all things to all people. DJ technology and culture, for example, will not be a main focus, except in cases where it is served by using synthesizers in real time (hence my nod to Deadmau5). Digital pianos meant for the living room? Well, once in a while, maybe a few of the more synthy ones. And one thing you might have seen elsewhere but won’t see here: Press releases from manufacturers’ marketing departments that, except maybe for some light editing, were copy-pasted word for word. Of course, we receive them all and we read them all, but even in a breaking news story about a new product or update, we’ll do our best to give you our take, based on our experience, about why something matters.

Anyone who has created a new website from scratch knows what a daunting task it can be, and though I’m very proud of the amount of content with which we’re starting out, I’m even more excited about what we’ll be adding soon. Reviews on our immediate calendar include Novation Peak, the Dave Smith Prophet Rev-2, Behringer DeepMind 12, Roland System-8, and much more. Got a scoop you think we should be aware of? Requests? Send it right to me.

To whet your appetite, well … who doesn’t like free stuff? Through July 31, 2017, you can download 28 synthesis tutorials courtesy of our partners at Groove 3. We also maintain a permanent and ever growing list of free synth plug-ins from third parties — that link is right up top. And, in the coming days, watch the site and our Facebook and Twitter feeds for news about some monster give-aways from Novation: we’re talking about the stuff you really want!

I owe a great debt of thanks to Production Expert group veterans Russ Hughes, Mike Thornton, and Dan Cooper for their unflinching support and heavy lifting as we’ve built the site up.

Thanks for joining me on this journey, and I hope we have a lot of fun together.