Options are great, new sounds, expanding vocabulary, multiple workflows, different methods… But does having a lot of synths ever make it more difficult to dig deeply into one, and fully explore it, know it inside out, to develop the muscle memory for that particular interface, the control surface as you would for any musical instrument, so that you can play it as an extension of yourself?
1 Like
Depends on how much time you spend with each synth.
2 Likes
This topic comes up frequently.
The answer depends on the person and their goals. Some create amazing work with virtuoso use of a single device, others treat the entire studio as an instrument. Most fall on the spectrum that runs between the two and beyond.
Think carefully about yourself, your goals, and your budget. Re-evaluate and change course as conditions change.
18 Likes
Well said!
1 Like
It can be a right ball ache getting loads of gear to work together, but worthwhile if you have a definite plan, smaller setups are fine until you hit the limit - eg it is not particularly inspiring to run out of tracks or midi channels etc. That said there is a certain freedom to working within a limited environment and it can be interesting to push the limits, you can’t really do that with a huge setup with tons of options. IMHO.
4 Likes
Ideally, I’d rather keep things as limited as possible and focus on the music. However, we have this “armed race” mentality now, so nobody wants to limit their options.
One contributing factor (and one pet-peeve), the fact that stuff often ships unfinished-unpatched, so we’re always chasing OS updates…
2 Likes
100%. Not only is it a spectrum across people but within people they change.
I’ve been primarily working with a Eurorack system for 7 years, with some extra synthw, samplers, and drum machines acting I supporting roles. In the last two years I had some big life changes (kid, job) and I don’t have time to sit down and patch up a interconnected system with many moving parts everytime I sit down. It was hard to realize that something I’ve put so much time, energy, and money into building and learning, but I feel some huge relief now that I’ve decided to sell a bunch of stuff and move to a streamlined setup with a poly, 1 sampler, 1 mono, 1 poly, and a drum synth. In particular, the poly is multitimbral and learning it well will really let me do a whole lot with much less mental overhead and in much less time. I’m really looking forward to learning it deeply and building the muscle memory to work on it quickly.
5 Likes
A synth is not a weapon. It is better to have one high quality weapon you know well then many that are just ok… with synth’s, I think the opposite is true…
It is not life or death after all!!
My weapon(s) of choice are the three Elektron “Digi” boxes. A lot of sonic variety, but with a mostly unified set of workflows.
That’s a lot of creative “bang” without being overly demanding on the brain or too distracting.
Basically, I found my hardware synth/sampler/drum sweet spots years ago, starting with the Digitakt/Digitone pairing, then finalized last year with the Syntakt. Grateful to have settled in and (mostly) avoided GAS for the past few years.
4 Likes
I’m definitely on a similar wavelength.
OT AR AK is my main set up.
Avoided gas for years now.
I like knowing the workflow and letting those parameters develop a personal style.
1 Like
Without a doubt, everything I take in is a tradeoff.
Definitely yes … you won’t get the sound of FM synthesis from subtractive synthesis.
Depends on the artist, some love it, some prefer to stay in a comfort zone
This can be inspring, because it pushes us out of comfort zones.
Very depending on the artist, for some it is, but others just focus on one instrument and dig as deep as they think necessary.
Absolutely … to focus on one instrument for some time is important to get this muscle memory. If we have to think too much about the technique to play an instrument, IMO, creativity and fun will suffer and frustration will prevail.
As others said, it depends on the personality and goals of the artist.
For a beginner I would recommend, start with one instrument, which has been choosen very carefully to match the needs and expectations, and dig as deep as it feels good and as long as it’s fun. This might be not easy, but it pays off.
If there is something missing, which can’t be done with this first instrument definitely, find a matching companion for the first instrument, which fills the gap, or even change horses completely.
A mass collection of tools will never be the solution for creating great music or music at all. But to know our tools in an out will at least help us to create great music.
2 Likes
why those extremes?
it’s better to have multiple weapons that you know well.
yes, it takes time & effort. but everything does when it comes to making music.
2 Likes
I think it depends mostly on whether you work in or outside of a DAW and are working live or not.
If you’re a DAW person then I think it makes sense to have a wide palette to work with, you can spend time with each instrument (can be software or hardware) recording stems and experimenting - I don’t think there needs to be a limit and working with only one instrument is more of an imposed limitation than a necessary one. Muscle memory is less key here IMO.
If you’re DAWless (or work live, with or without a DAW) then I think there is a sweet spot, and I think it makes sense focussing on fewer instruments that you can become a master with. This will enable you to work faster and be comfortable improvising. Muscle memory can be important and ultimately you only have 2 hands - I frequently find myself limited by the number of things I can physically do at once, and this is eased by reducing the amount of gear I’m working with. Conversely having too few instruments can limit the number of things you can do at once, which might remove flexibility and performance options. I’d say something between 2-4 is the right number, and you want to build the muscle memory in working with them and be able to move around them fluidly.
Both of these come with the caveat that you should do what you want. Some people will find using 3 pieces of gear every time they make music boring, some will get a great deal of pleasure focussing on 1 instrument only - listen to your heart especially if it’s a hobby and not a profession.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
— Robert Heinlein, “Time Enough for Love” (1973)
3 Likes
I’ve learned that I’m much less a “musician” and much more just someone who enjoys messing around with all kinds of gear. So I embrace my lack of focus and constantly wander between the “what” and “how” of the gear I use.
For me, it’s a path to nowhere, so I focus on enjoying the path itself.
2 Likes
Careful, Heinlein probably also would have said we should all learn some music theory!
4 Likes
Weapons are for killing and maiming.
Music gear/instruments is for making noise/music.
Doesnt really matter how many you have or how good you think you are. As long as you are enjoying yourself and annoying at least 1 other human being.
9 Likes
is it better to speak only one language or to be multilingual a possible analogy as well, it’s really up to you everybody is different, some people only have arms, hands, and fingers but then again some people have fingers that are like hands, and hands that are like arms, and arms that are like wings… what was the question again 
I got a really good xoxbox build a decade or so ago. It stuck to all the specs that Lady Ada prescribed, with the one component going in backwards as was the original factory mistake with the 303. I’ve been told it sounds better than most other xoxen and I’ve taken it to every gig I’ve done over the last decade too.
It’s a one trick pony, but it is a good trick.
1 Like