Of all the synths that have been made from the Mid 90's onwards, what ones do you think we'll look back at in 20 or 30 years time and swoon with delight over how amazing they were???

I've given this some thought (I think about this kind of crap all the time!) and I would say...

Clavia Nord Lead (1, 2 or 3)
Reason 1- It has (or had, as the case may be!) a reputation for having an amazing sound.
Reason 2- It has been played by many synth heavyweights like Jean Michelle Jarre, Fatboy Slim and the guy from The Pet Shop Boys.
Reason 3- already it LOOKS like a vintage synth!


Yamaha Motif (any version):
Reason 1- Statistically it kicks (or kicked) arse against its rivals.
Reason 2- The first synth to genuinely tear down the barriers between synths, workstations and samplers.

Korg Triton:
Reason 1- A flagship synth of the 90s.
Reason 2- The first mass produced synth with an onboard sampler (I think).
Reason 3- A million appearances on Top of the Pops.

Novation Supernova
Reason 1- Statistically one of the best synths in its class when it came out.
Reason 2- Rare. Quite difficult to get a hold of one (and even more so in 20 years time!).
Reason 3- One of the first digital synths that had analogue tweakability (i.e., hundreds of knobs and buttons on the front panel).

The Roland Grooveboxes (MC303, 505... etc)
Reason 1- a nostaligic gimmick for the future.
Reason 2- They (will) look cute and funny on stage alongside your liguid cooled laptop and your thought controlled MIDI keyboard.

and finally...

Korg Z1:
Reason- I'm selling one! :P

Hey EQ,
What's gonna replace Z1?

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 01-04-2004).]

Hi ho!

My plan is to replace everything I have with a laptop and a small midi controller keyboard.

Personally speaking, I think "hard" synths have had their day.

I know what you mean about the hardware synths. Although I personally had it with mouse clicking. For the past two years soft synths have completely "taken over" my studio. So it's click-click-click ...instead of front panel editing or good old knob tweaking.
I hope they'll eventually come up with dedicated hardware synths capable of hosting VST/AU ...whatever plug-ins and soft instruments.
'Cause for now...
click click to check e-mail, click-click to "tweak" your favorite soft synth...
Sucks after a while.
But what can you do...

-ED-

It's interesting to note that this discussion started with the following names mentioned:

'Jean Michelle Jarre, Fatboy Slim and the guy from The Pet Shop Boys'

All of these are brilliant artists and have, sometimes, vivid imaginations. So to the point, surely any synth, 'board or other electronic instrument is only as good as the capability and imagination of the performer.

Just a thought, but a sane one, I hope.

Adious,

Mark

The Kurzweils tore down the barriers between workstations and samplers about 10 years ahead of the Motif. I'm sure there was something else before the K's too.

The Roland grooveboxes have a bad reputation of being nothing but crap toys, milking on the names of the past. It's true too. Have you ever tried an MC-303? It's such a piece of shit. I'm a Roland fan (owning 3 Roland synths), but the groove crap is just embarrasing.

On the software side I think Cubase VST started a serious movement into a new direction with all its amazing plug-ins.

-tek

You're probably right about the Grooveboxes, but then again... I don't think vintage status is always aquired by simply being a great product. I can think of lots of items (not just synths) that are considered vintage, but to any semi trained eye they are in fact... crap. Think of MG Roadsters. Any mechanic or car enthusiast will tell you that they are the most leaky, unreliable, shody, poor performing and injury prone cars in the history of universe. When the MG Roadster first came on the scene back in the late 60s, it didn't break any new records or tear down any barriers at all. It was just a cute looking, (slightly) sporty car. But now, 30 odd years later, MG Roadsters are considered by most to be true vintage classics.

As for Kurzweils... well, I must confess to not knowing too much about them. I have read the stats and they certainly look impressive. But one thing I can say for sure is that I've seen lots of high profile acts appearing on TV using Motifs (eg, Tina Turner's band) and I've also seen a bombardment of Motif adverts appearing on the back pages some major music magazines over the past couple of years. But the only time I've ever seen Kurzweils get any hype at all has been in this forum!

The fact of the matter is that Kurzweils lack the sex appeal of other synth heavyweights like Rolands and Korgs. I'm not saying that's right or a good thing, I just think it's the way things are. As far as I can tell, the only people who seem to be into Kurzweils are synth geeks like you and I.

So, as far as the future-classics debate goes, I think that the thing(s) that make a synth a classic are not always quality or even "ground-breakingness" (i.e., did it tear down new barriers when it came out). I think other factors definately come into play.

[This message has been edited by Equalizer (edited 01-05-2004).]

You haven't seen Kurzweils with big names? That's funny because usually you can only spot Kurzweils with the biggest names/studios. Believe me, the mags have been covered with Kurzweil ads, as if that means anything. The K2000 appeeared in 1991, so maybe it doesn't fit the criteria, but then another future classic wouldn't either, the Roland JD-800.

You can't just skip considering the ground-breaking aspects of a product and then think your predictions will be right. Even if you do, I'm pretty sure the Roland grooveboxes don't have much to offer in the way of long lasting user affection.

-tek

Well, dispite the fact that Kurzwells were used by a lot of big pros and musicians they developed a reputation for being unreliable, full of software bugs, and other crap too.
I personally love the sound of those synths, but I'm glad I no longer have to use kurzwell gear.
But reliability (more lack of it) was also an issue with synths like the Yamaha CS80 and Waldorf PPG synths. Dispite the issues those synths were heavily used and even inspired software developers like Steinberg and Arturia to create their software versions.

Grooveboxes are just as tek said - CRAP.
JD800...Well it's been considered vintage since the book "Vintage Synthesizers" came out. Definitely a cool synth. But I like the JD990 better. No faders, but other killer features.

A few years from now we might see...
Virtual JD800 or may be even virtual K2000.
Sounds funny now, but you never know!

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 01-05-2004).]

Ok, well... maybe you have got me in checkmate with the Kurzweil thing. But hey, at least I admitted to not knowing much about them earlier on!

And as for the MCshit-o-shit series... Roland, as far as I can tell, seemed to go through a spell that lasted from around the mid nineties to 2000 where they tried desperately to convince the world that Grooveboxes were the new synths of the future.

They gave those Grooveboxes a ridiculous amount of hype and attention. In fact, thanks to the Grooveboxes there were, as far as I can tell, no mid ranged Roland synths in production from the mid 90s up until very recently.

That fact alone gives the Grooveboxes a good chance of making it to classic status, in my humble opinion.

Let's remember, Roland and Korg are like the Fender and Gibson of the synth world. They are probably the two most famous synth making companies on the planet. And when people look back in 20 years time and ask themselves, "What synths were Roland making around the turn of the century?", the first thing that will spring to mind will probably be the Grooveboxes. Phantoms and XV88s were made around the same time, but they have always been grossly overpriced (I think) and were therefore never embraced by the masses.