More synths please!

[Vartan K.]

OK maybe a lot of the people reading the magazine are not really into synthesizers but I would like to see more issues like #44. It was by far my favorite to date. Anyone with me on this? Hell there's not even any advertisements. I'm tired of seeing the same mic and pre adds!

[mjau]

Was 44 the issue w/ Larry Fast in it? If not, see if you can find that one. Synth-o-rama.

[Vartan K.]

No it wasnt. #44 had Malcom Cecil and the TONTO.
Ill try and find the one your talking about. I dont remember it. Anyone know the issue number?

[Knights Who Say Neve]

In this vein, I'd love to see more articles about creative electronic production.

An interview with Dan the Automator would be great...

[Vartan K.]

Someone who really should be interviewed is Jessica Rylan AKA Cant. I bet alot of readers would enjoy that. http://www.irfp.net

[Kitana_One]

My long-time friend, colleague and owner of the Audio Playground Synthesizer Museum, Joseph Rivers... would be a good candidate for something like this.

It's home of the largest collection of synths and drum machines in the world.

Not to mention a Toft console... tons of rare/vintage/unknown mics, pre's, compressors and etc.

He' sdesigned synth sounds fo rsome legendary synths, advised on others... worked with Bob Moog, Patrick Moraz... and tons of others.

http://keyboardmuseum.com

If you need a direct contact, just PM me.

[percussion boy]

I'd like to see more of this.

Two hangups I can see, though:

1. The staff's stock response is, "You want it? You do the interviews." Which is fair enough.

2. In terms of current electronic production, there's a bunch of other magazines (mostly British) going deep into it already: SOUND ON SOUND, COMPUTER MUSIC, FUTURE MUSIC, et al.

An unexplored angle is more talk with Hip Hop production and recording people -- VIBE et al don't really explore how the music is made. THAT is a need crying to be answered. The Public Enemy OP interview was wonderful . . .

[Rodgre]

We should all send these requests to Electronic Musician and ask them to bring back the golden era of Polyphony!

While I love to read about analog synths and creative analog electronic processing, I think I'd rather see a new publication that is specifically meant for that purpose. So who's with me? Who wants to start a circuit-benders anonymous magazine with lots of features on classic analog synths and wacky and rare effects processors, with a monthly DIY article, not to mention a recurring column with fresh ideas to "repurpose" for your old Amiga computer (book end? door stop? paperweight? scavenge it for parts to make a crazy fuzzbox then turn the carcass into a funky lamp for your college dorm room?)

One of my favorite and most inspiring Tape Op articles, with regard to analog/modular synths was the fantastic article in issue #23 with John McEntire and Soma Studios. I think I re-read that piece once every 6 months to remind myself that there's a reason why I have so many patch cables!

Roger

[EggyToast]

Yeah, I started reading TapeOp because it was about recording, not synths. There's a lot of synth magazines out there, and there's not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a stereo out; you just plug them in. Usually the hardest thing to do, beyond getting a good patch that fits well with the rest of the music, is EQing them to make sure they're not taking over a track.

Not to mention that a lot of synth reviews end up reading more like gear porn than actual reviews -- lots of glossy pictures of knobs, talking about the synth's "measurements," but not a lot of comparisons to other models and how one is better than another.

[apropos of nothing]

Yeah, I started reading TapeOp because it was about recording, not synths. There's a lot of synth magazines out there, and there's not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a stereo out; you just plug them in. Usually the hardest thing to do, beyond getting a good patch that fits well with the rest of the music, is EQing them to make sure they're not taking over a track.

Not to mention that a lot of synth reviews end up reading more like gear porn than actual reviews -- lots of glossy pictures of knobs, talking about the synth's "measurements," but not a lot of comparisons to other models and how one is better than another.

I can't disagree with you more on the first point. There is soooo much more about recording synths than what you describe. Possibly enough to fill up as much space as talking about how to mic drums. There's 28 ways to record synthesizers -- granted that they all go out a line out, initially. There're different synthesizers that fill different niches of sound. There're lots of things that you can do with synthesizers that you've never even heard of.

On the latter point, I totally agree with you, which is why they need some actual exploration in TapeOp.

In the most recent issue, the feller who did the field recording stuff and treated with the Doepfer A-100, I would really have liked some in-depth as to what types of treatments he was using with that.

[EggyToast]

Well, yes, there's more to recording a synth than just "plug it in," but a lot of those other methods are rather universal. As in, of those "28 methods," how many are ONLY applicable to synths? However, the fact that they have a line-out that sounds really good gives it a leg up on recording ease compared to, well, any acoustic instrument :D

There is a lot more variety in synths, and also a lot of mystery and differences from instrument to instrument. A guitar is a guitar as far as playing the thing goes, but has a different tone or sound. A single synth patch could be piano-like, a rave bassline, or a self-modulating monster that isn't so much played as it is tamed. But I think a lot of that goes beyond a recording magazine. Plus, of those 28 methods, I know there's ways that involve well-treated rooms, fancy mics, and different recording media. :D

I guess the main reason I'm opposed to tape op doing more synth reviews is that I've had SoundOnSound subscriptions, I've read Computer Music Journal, and I keep an eye on what happens in the synth world. There's a lot going on, but it's generally well-covered terrain. A magazine that touches on the nuances of synthesis and some of the deep aspects of modulation and variation would probably only appeal to a select few (after all, look how many people just dial through presets on synths). It's not applicable to all types of music, either. I had a Nord Modular a few years back and enjoyed making noodle patches, weird noises, but it's not always musical and the more weird stuff doesn't really fit into more standard musical genres. And the argument over worthwhile musical genres is a discussion for another board, I think!

I like a magazine that touches upon more of the nitty gritty of getting sound recorded, regardless of its source. I wouldn't mind more electronic sources hitting the pages, but I also wouldn't mind some DIY sections and some low-price options. Sometimes I wonder who the magazine is for, when you see a cover of a guy recording by himself in a small apartment on the cover, and the ads in the same magazine are for $1000+ mics and megaconsoles :D

[Jeff White]

[Babaluma]

[Knights Who Say Neve]

There's a lot of synth magazines out there, and there's not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a stereo out; you just plug them in.

There's a lot of guitar amps out there, and not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a speaker in front; you just put the microphone there.

[Jeff White]

There's a lot of synth magazines out there, and there's not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a stereo out; you just plug them in.

There's a lot of guitar amps out there, and not a lot of mystery regarding how to record them. They all have a speaker in front; you just put the microphone there.

+1 x 2

(edit for sarcasm)