Heck. My eyes had completely missed this one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceri JC
Oh yes. It's amazing how many people can't do the basics of synthesis correctly. They tweak some patches in absynth/massive and it sounds good, but the don't really understand what they've done.
|
I don't think the problem is in incapability of using synths. It's just the cursed "because that guys does this, I'll do too" playground mentality.
Quote:
|
Harmless enough in itself, but it's annoying when they then start making ill-informed comments about synth x's capabilities because they weren't able to get something great out of it in 5 minutes (and of course, someone else then reads this and takes it as gospel).
|
The most common case I've encountered is that the useability of a synth is defined by the famous users of it.
Quote:
I made an ambient track a few years back in Reason 1.0 that used nothing other than one instance of the (admittedly rather basic) 'Subtractor' synth and the standard (again v. basic) Reason FX units. I didn't reveal how I'd made the track. One individual who only days earlier had been saying how rubbish Subtractor was and how all Reason tracks sounded alike and were too thin, liked it and confidently said that he "could tell" the track was made with a few Absynth patches* and a real sample of someone snoring. 
|
This happens when image gets more powerful than the reality. This is the thing in which most of the bogus high fidelity stuff is based on: Make a person believe that it makes a difference and, like by a magic, the person starts to hear the difference. Psychology is great!