…there are no flat circles…only full circles…throughout all dimensions…
1 Like
I see some similarities in the marketing and segmentation of the market (I say this as someone who owns half a dozen synths and 17 watches, so I personally participate in both hobbies).
I think that’s not entirely surprising, given that both are most often luxuries. Yes, in theory you can use a dive watch to back up your dive computer if you are a commercial diver and yes, if you perform live and build your workflow around it then it is entirely possible that something like an Octatrack is a tool that makes you money. But for 99.8% of the consumers of these products, they are a nice thing to spend some extra money you have on because it makes you happy and/or plugs that gaping hole your dead cat has left in your heart.
In both markets I see niche brands doing different things(Xeric in watches is to Gamechanger in music), luxury brands doing expensive things (Rolex/Omega/Analog Solutions/Moog), brands cloning other more expensive brands and selling similar products for cheaper (San Martin/Pagani Design in watches to Behringer in music). Maybe that’s the businessman in me seeing similar marketing needs/strategies for these companies, but yeah I see the similarities.
That’s why I collect G-Shocks. Why get anything more expensive?
To the OP, that’s an interesting analogy. As software gets better and better (I still think it has a way to go, especially in terms of replicating analog circuits realistically) it’ll probably come down to what you’d rather be doing, twiddling a knob or clicking a mouse? Or down to touchscreens versus tactile interfaces? Each will always have advantages, but soundwise there will soon be little difference between approaches.
1 Like
I think it’s 100 percent like this.
No need for a mechanical watch having the smartphone I am using to write this very same post, yet…
IMO, A lot had to do with the same reasoning behind music hardware: tactile, immediacy and focus. A simple one trick pony Casio distract you less from whatever you want to do than a miríade of apps/plugins/vst on your smart watch.
And mechanical vs digital: more of the same analog vs digital:
Some people prefer the continuous sliding and dragging of a mechanical movement to the harsh, cold and repetitive sterile perfection of quartz movements.
2 Likes
Tape cassettes and chrome.
I’m no DAWless.
I am DAW-free.
By the way… just to further proof my point that it is the same thing, mine’s is the Volca of mechanical watches: a USD 50 Seiko 7S26 based.
Moogs are like Rolex: No diver today is going to count on a watch for their immersions (pro uses wrist computers, you know like a DAW), yet they made those Gold Rolex Submariners and the like for those with nostalgia of yesterday gadgets and lots of cash (just like getting a Model D of that Gold plated MOOG Mirror).
Modular…what to say. It’s like those who like watches with complications, perpetual calendars and the like: for sure you can just do it with VCV rack, but the joy is in creating these complicated machines (Edward Scissor hands creator syndrome)
I’m curious whether you’ve tried Drambo.
Actually it’s a widespread sentiment in iPad music circles that most of the modern iPad apps suck because they aren’t created with touchscreen in mind, and are rather iPad adaptations of desktop concepts, unlike unique older touchscreen-focused apps like Samplr. I didn’t have an iPad back then though, so can’t confirm.
Something something VCO imperfections and warmth
3 Likes
I’ve known for a while that if for some reason I stopped having access to my hardware “groovebox/electronic” units, I would be sad at first, but the chances that I wouldn’t go out of my way to buy replacements at a later time, if at all, are high. I understand that it is a luxury for me to own gear. Fortunately for me I do not take for granted because I use it all. That may be because I have made the effort to curate the things that I truly need and to not acquire things I do not.
A big bulk of the music producer mentality is governed by wanting things. I do not need my Monomachine to make music. I do not need it to be creative. There is nothing magical or scientific about it that connects its guts to my neurons and fire new ideas to my brain. I am perfectly aware that I may feel like I am being creative because I am just engaging in music making from a different approach. I have tested that if I just push myself to engage with, say, the DAW with a different approach than normal, I achieve the same results. I just want to have a Monomachine.
2 Likes
They definitely are, compared to making music on a computer or phone that you presumably already own.
If with “feel” you mean the feeling of status and/or authenticity, I don’t think that’s correct. Because:
This simply isn’t correct. You are paying precisely for the tactile workflow, which grants you access to musical expression that you simply cannot do on a phone.
This is where your analogy of mechanical vs digital watches breaks down. It’s an interesting comparison, but crucially, mechanical and digital watches serve the same core function: to show the time. The rest of it is just presentation, status, design, “feel”, etc.
Music instruments, on the other hand, are about engaging with your hands and using them as expressive extensions of your music. Try playing a 61-key synth with expressive aftertouch and a proper pitch bend wheel. Now do the same thing on your phone.
Some of them arguably already are. The Push 3, Maschine, MPC - they’re essentially expressive midi controllers of computer software. That’s the point: it’s the tactile workflow you’re after, not just the software.
1 Like
Summary
I thought about this for a while and it’s hard to find any kind of real answer because in reality it’s completely situational, or in other words it’s subjective to the individual.
Any argument for technology could be reversed to say that even if one technology is deemed superior there’s always still a better version of that technology and then you’re stuck in an endless loop of “do I have the newest and best?” Basically, caught up in the typical consumer trap.
Any argument for augmented personal connections to these types of technologically irrelevant choices is extremely subjective and therefore hard to substantiate. Who’s really able to determine how valid the sincerity of one viewpoint is over the other? Unless you’re able to do so, it’s often pitting one sincere view against another.
If a watch tells time and fits your wrist, the utilitarian view says it’s a good watch. So, if a hardware groovebox works and you can make music on it, there’s nothing to validate that the way a human interacts with a computer is a superior interface for musical output than a drum machine. In counterpoint, there’s nothing that says that it isn’t.
The wristwatch, as a personal choice, is the same in that it depends on the person wearing it and what it means to them or does for them functionally (or I guess also what it does for them psychologically).
I do think it’s possible to have niche markets for more than one version of a technology and have both be equally valid to the end user, unless you’re talking about something morally deplorable and in this case, we’re not.
You can never really know what a watch truly means to a person.
10 Likes
Music production is way too personal to ever get an absolute answer on this. For me, if I had to give away all my hardware and just use a laptop and ableton to make music, id still be making music.
The difference with a mechanical watch is that I wear mine now and then because I like how it looks and feels on my wrist. But it’s not a creative device that I use for artistic expression. A watch is a utility used by many as a stylistic expression. This is why I believe mechanical watches will never truly be irrelevant. There will be a fashionable movement away from wearable tech and returning to old school at some point. This is just like people who use a 1995 portastudio now. even though by all accounts it is antiquated technology. The artistic expression of only using 4 tracks on a cassette projects minimalism and enforces limitations. Many producers are inspired by that process more than using a DAW, even though on paper a DAW is vastly superior.
3 Likes
Yeah man all you need is an iPad Pro!
(comments disabled)
1 Like
Ha!
I hid this uncomfortable piece of metal up my ass for two years! Great scene!
3 Likes
things will most probably be different in hundreds of years from now and eventually what we see/have seen in movies will become reality (isn’t it happening already?).
people will get used to the technologies that will allow them to perform tasks in a way that people from the 20s were not ready for and had no idea would be part of our everyday life…
think about how you ask a question to a small device and you get an answer from it, was that something feasible back then? mm…some kind of witchcraft hidden in there for those people.
as things change, we’ll become more and more accustomed to do things differently, as we’ve done throughout our evolution, things like a piano or a synthesizer will probably still have a place somewhere, but will eventually be superseded by newer/smarter?/whatever technology, not meaning they’ll disappear completely but will end up being used differently or sought after just because they’ve turned into some sort of collectible; much of course depends on what we’ll do. having said that, how long as the piano be around for? roughly 300 years?
apparently though, some will still be enjoying a proper hardware synth 
1 Like
I wear the same model, and get a lot of compliments. I think we might be ahead of the style curve on that one
3 Likes
This was my third favorite Walker role of all time. If you can name the top two, you win. You don’t win anything, but you win.
One of them has to be Joe Dirt!
1 Like
Small screen, single port, constant interruptions from text, calls, reminders, etc… No thanks.
Are you that guy that I sometimes see on late night TV commercials, selling small kitchen appliances and promising that it is simple to make food that taste like it was cooked by a chef, with three simple ingredients and in only minutes. No mess, no fuss, no talent, no way.
My 5c (almost) about the topic:
I’ve bought the A4 MK2 because of it’s analog goodness. Some people blame it for it’s sound that “is too plain”. But I can tell you that it highly depends on what you want from it. And how you can cook it. If you’re not familiar with different filters, sound design techniques and just using some random presets of others then it sucks. Then you’d better stick to some classic analog synthesizers.
When you’re using VSTs (even some really good), they give you just “quick things” that are really easy to use and recall any presets. But very often you don’t learn about the real sound without any true analog device.
Even a cheap Boog gives you much more than a ton of good Moog-like VSTs!
So many ppl wear mechanical watches because they want to “feel the time”. Not to just see precise numbers and use it. BTW, I’m not so nostalgic about watches. My only (old) feeling is about Casio Montana. It was pretty famous in our country in late 80s. But now I don’t really need it.
Analog machines of Elektron are the things that gives the power of sound. I don’t really like their digital synthesizers although they look cool and the most aspects are right.
I hope that Elektron will fresh up A4’s firmware. It will be a gift to many analog synth fans.
P.S. I’m pretty familiar about the DSP algorythms, PolyBLEPS and etc. I don’t know the things around analog models (like Roland’s) as I threat them as the “abomination” :))
My “turning point” was the meet of C64’s SID sound. Before that I was thinking that VSTs are better and replaces the analog synthesizers in the most of aspects (in 2018).