The Secret Weapon

[dono]

...rather than being another one of these mediocre 'IDM' artists who think making music is like computer hacking or electrical engineering or something. That's just my opinion, though. The important thing is that they stop talking/reading about and collecting toys long enough to produce some decent music.

Hey hey hey... now...

I am a computer hacker...

And I make plenty of music.

[SonicDimension]

...rather than being another one of these mediocre 'IDM' artists who think making music is like computer hacking or electrical engineering or something. That's just my opinion, though. The important thing is that they stop talking/reading about and collecting toys long enough to produce some decent music.

Hey hey hey... now...

I am a computer hacker...

And I make plenty of music.

Ok. I'm not trying to tell anyone what kind of music to listen to or the correct method for making good music; I was just saying that aspiring electronic artists should be aware of the temptation to obsess about the technology to the detriment of their music. In my opinion, a lot of electronic artists (IDM artists, especially) could be making superior music if they spent more time learning things like music theory and how to play an instrument rather than obsessing about gear all the time.

[dono]

SonicDimension

I think that you're right that a lot of people think that a specific piece will do their magic for them, and that many people rely too much on collecting things as opposed to "doing" things...

I know that myself and a lot of people on here already take this stance as well. I also know that myself and a lot of other people on here have a background with music, theory, etc.

This discussion seems to be more about approach, and gear is part of that approach, and it's a great topic for artists of like mind to talk about. Face it, people are responsible for the creativity, but gear CAN make a great difference in what you're actually trying to achieve.

[Pantheon]

These are some interesting points you both raise.
I'd like to chip in with some of my own thoughts on this matter:

Sonic has a good point that people need to focus on the music first and gear secondly.
People seem to get that backwards, most noticeably in beginner musicians.

I have seen so many musicians that have huge library's of VSTs. They will use them, but not understating much about what they actually do. I was the same when I first started out, downloading anything that caught my eye. I soon realized that there is only a select few ways to process music, and anything more complex will just be a collection of these techniques used together in some form.

Synths are the exact same, just a collection of common elements, LFOs, Envelopes, Filters, etc.
If you realize that then you can learn how to work around most limitations of a peace of equipment.

The key is to pick out the best core modules and learn how to combine them yourself, instead of investing in multitudes of items to do that for you. Ultimately this will give you lots more control.

As an example, I can produce almost any musical sound given enough time, with only the tools in the basic Ableton program. I don't use any other plugins. It seems that people who often feel limited by their program or there tools just need to work out exactly how the sound they want is produced and aim to replicate that exact process with all the tools they have to hand.

The key here is that buying some magic tool might help a musician, but only because they probably never understood what it is going to do for them anyway. They used it as a stepping stone to avoid learning how to replicate its function with the tools they already had.

For example, why buy and analogue synthesizer when you can bounce the samples to tape yourself for "warmth", then load them into a sampler and process them as if they are from a VCO. You then still have Envelopes and filters so you can play it just like a regular analogue synth. It sounds awesome by the way.

My stance is that there is no magic gear, and if someone thinks there is, its only because they don't understand what its actually doing. Tools rarely limit a musician, its more often their knowledge of sound itself.

Music theory is a whole different kettle of fish from sound theory though.
Its easy to get the two mixed up but gear has nothing to do with music theory.
Gear is never going to help you write a compose a great hook line.

[edit]
I should also have stated that I am however a sucker for cool looking gear.
The more old school dials it has the better and glowing tubes just give me a warm feeling all over.
You really can reproduce the sound of valve equipment convincingly.
[/edit]

[Shut That Bird Up]

Sorry, I know that this is a very old topic, but other than the Roland SH101/MC202, I have just discovered what the 'secret weapon is 100%. Of course nobody on this forum would be interested in finding out what it is, because they would be right in saying that talent is far more important.

And I agree with them.

[Tomisnever]

Sorry, I know that this is a very old topic, but other than the Roland SH101/MC202, I have just discovered what the 'secret weapon is 100%. Of course nobody on this forum would be interested in finding out what it is, because they would be right in saying that talent is far more important.

And I agree with them.

[SonicDimension]

Sorry, I know that this is a very old topic, but other than the Roland SH101/MC202, I have just discovered what the 'secret weapon is 100%. Of course nobody on this forum would be interested in finding out what it is, because they would be right in saying that talent is far more important.

And I agree with them.

Someone recently brought up the 'secret weapon' thing in this thread. He said that he thought it might be a Crumar Toccata organ. I think he could be right. It could be the source of many of their mysterious polyphonic timbres.

[Kinski]

lol

there is no secret weapon. it's just a combination of clever sampling from tapes (brothers themselves admited they use old 4-tracks and tape players) and good keyboards (like roland sh101) that gives them their sound. it's not like there's an 'instant boc' patch on any organ with italian soundng name. just broken tape players and oversaturated, reverberated melodies.

it's really basic when you think of it.

[Shut That Bird Up]

lol

there is no secret weapon. it's just a combination of clever sampling from tapes (brothers themselves admited they use old 4-tracks and tape players) and good keyboards (like roland sh101) that gives them their sound. it's not like there's an 'instant boc' patch on any organ with italian soundng name. just broken tape players and oversaturated, reverberated melodies.

it's really basic when you think of it.

Whilst everyone knows that Kinski is right when it comes to recording concepts , he does mention a Roland Sh101. This synth is instantly recognizable is when it comes to BOC's sound. Now I am sure that you could program different analog monosynth to sound similar, but never the same.

Now I honestly have no interest in making music that sounds like anyone else. In fact I totally totally gave up music as a profession four and a half years ago when a family member became ill. My only interest in this subject is that of a nerd who could hear a reoccurring polysynth going through their early tape recordings to the later releases. I was, until about a week ago totally baffled by what this synth was.

Now about a week ago I was having a chat with this man ,who happens to be a very good friend of mine.

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2007/10 ... torer.html

As usual we were discussing all things music, when he started waxing lyrical about this truly underrated synth. At the time I thought nothing of it , but the following day it just clicked...

I totally remembered playing one of these in an indie band I was a member of in the early/mid nineties and the thought crossed my mind that maybe this was the "secret weapon". I then listened intently to as many online recordings as I could. Knowing that most online synth stuff is techno based I sifted through until I found 2 that were total dead giveaways. I mean instantly recognizable as a main BOC synth.

Anyway, I picked up one of these yesterday and after a couple of hours programming I totally know that this synth is as much a "secret weapon" as their M202/Sh101.

Sorry, I am not going to post any audio examples, but If anyone is interested in PMing me on their idea of a BOC "secret weapon" and they match up with mine, I promise to send the individual a couple of links showing what I mean. It will then be up to them to spill the beans and if they want and watch the prices of these synths go through the roof.

x

[polar sky]

Sorry, I know that this is a very old topic, but other than the Roland SH101/MC202, I have just discovered what the 'secret weapon is 100%. Of course nobody on this forum would be interested in finding out what it is, because they would be right in saying that talent is far more important.

And I agree with them.

Someone recently brought up the 'secret weapon' thing in this thread. He said that he thought it might be a Crumar Toccata organ. I think he could be right. It could be the source of many of their mysterious polyphonic timbres.

Yeah, the Toccata is a great organ. I used to play one in my old garage band for years. Picked it up for $200

[SonicDimension]

Whilst everyone knows that Kinski is right when it comes to recording concepts , he does mention a Roland Sh101. This synth is instantly recognizable is when it comes to BOC's sound. Now I am sure that you could program different analog monosynth to sound similar, but never the same.

Now I honestly have no interest in making music that sounds like anyone else. In fact I totally totally gave up music as a profession four and a half years ago when a family member became ill. My only interest in this subject is that of a nerd who could hear a reoccurring polysynth going through their early tape recordings to the later releases. I was, until about a week ago totally baffled by what this synth was.

Now about a week ago I was having a chat with this man ,who happens to be a very good friend of mine.

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2007/10 ... torer.html

As usual we were discussing all things music, when he started waxing lyrical about this truly underrated synth. At the time I thought nothing of it , but the following day it just clicked...

I totally remembered playing one of these in an indie band I was a member of in the early/mid nineties and the thought crossed my mind that maybe this was the "secret weapon". I then listened intently to as many online recordings as I could. Knowing that most online synth stuff is techno based I sifted through until I found 2 that were total dead giveaways. I mean instantly recognizable as a main BOC synth.

Anyway, I picked up one of these yesterday and after a couple of hours programming I totally know that this synth is as much a "secret weapon" as their M202/Sh101.

Sorry, I am not going to post any audio examples, but If anyone is interested in PMing me on their idea of a BOC "secret weapon" and they match up with mine, I promise to send the individual a couple of links showing what I mean. It will then be up to them to spill the beans and if they want and watch the prices of these synths go through the roof.

I'm skeptical. Can you name a few BoC tracks where you think this polysynth was used?

[polar sky]

lol

there is no secret weapon. it's just a combination of clever sampling from tapes (brothers themselves admited they use old 4-tracks and tape players) and good keyboards (like roland sh101) that gives them their sound. it's not like there's an 'instant boc' patch on any organ with italian soundng name. just broken tape players and oversaturated, reverberated melodies.

it's really basic when you think of it.

Whilst everyone knows that Kinski is right when it comes to recording concepts , he does mention a Roland Sh101. This synth is instantly recognizable is when it comes to BOC's sound. Now I am sure that you could program different analog monosynth to sound similar, but never the same.

Now I honestly have no interest in making music that sounds like anyone else. In fact I totally totally gave up music as a profession four and a half years ago when a family member became ill. My only interest in this subject is that of a nerd who could hear a reoccurring polysynth going through their early tape recordings to the later releases. I was, until about a week ago totally baffled by what this synth was.

Now about a week ago I was having a chat with this man ,who happens to be a very good friend of mine.

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2007/10 ... torer.html

As usual we were discussing all things music, when he started waxing lyrical about this truly underrated synth. At the time I thought nothing of it , but the following day it just clicked...

I totally remembered playing one of these in an indie band I was a member of in the early/mid nineties and the thought crossed my mind that maybe this was the "secret weapon". I then listened intently to as many online recordings as I could. Knowing that most online synth stuff is techno based I sifted through until I found 2 that were total dead giveaways. I mean instantly recognizable as a main BOC synth.

Anyway, I picked up one of these yesterday and after a couple of hours programming I totally know that this synth is as much a "secret weapon" as their M202/Sh101.

Sorry, I am not going to post any audio examples, but If anyone is interested in PMing me on their idea of a BOC "secret weapon" and they match up with mine, I promise to send the individual a couple of links showing what I mean. It will then be up to them to spill the beans and if they want and watch the prices of these synths go through the roof.

x

Oh for God's sake. So you found this poly synth you think they use, but you won't tell us what you think it is? Who cares if it is or isn't.

I don't think their "Secret Weapon" is a synth or any instrument, but actually a recording technique.

I am sure they have a bunch of synths, rare and common. I also think a lot of the melodies you think are synths are actually other instruments and audio samples bent and mangled into something that resembles a synth. This idea is based on what they have said in past interviews.

[88marquis]

I don't think their "Secret Weapon" is a synth or any instrument, but actually a recording technique.

Agree! I think you've got the right idea here.

[soundxplorer]

spill the beans and if they want and watch the prices of these synths go through the roof.

I think that's probably overestimating the number of people who would buy a synth just because BoC uses it.

[BunnyRabbit]

A Bunker Full of Memories
"If I told you what the secret weapon is, it wouldn't be a secret anymore. We have more than one really. We use a mixture of old and new equipment"

On the other hand

Biography
1988: michael bought what he now describes as the band's "secret weapon" synth from a friend for £100 whilst travelling on a bus.

£100 was about the going rate for an SH 101 in those days.

Anyway, I'm sure STBU will share the joy of knowledge soon.

[Shut That Bird Up]

Anyway, I'm sure STBU will share the joy of knowledge soon.

I am sure I will soon . If anyone can be bothered to send me a PM , I probably will now.

[nsputnik]

I nominate the Akai VX-600.
http://www.vintagesynth.com/akai/vx600.php

[SonicDimension]

As usual we were discussing all things music, when he started waxing lyrical about this truly underrated synth. At the time I thought nothing of it , but the following day it just clicked...

I totally remembered playing one of these in an indie band I was a member of in the early/mid nineties and the thought crossed my mind that maybe this was the "secret weapon". I then listened intently to as many online recordings as I could. Knowing that most online synth stuff is techno based I sifted through until I found 2 that were total dead giveaways. I mean instantly recognizable as a main BOC synth.

Anyway, I picked up one of these yesterday and after a couple of hours programming I totally know that this synth is as much a "secret weapon" as their M202/Sh101.

Sorry, I am not going to post any audio examples, but If anyone is interested in PMing me on their idea of a BOC "secret weapon" and they match up with mine, I promise to send the individual a couple of links showing what I mean. It will then be up to them to spill the beans and if they want and watch the prices of these synths go through the roof.

Hmm, a synth that is/was:
-polyphonic
-underrated
-played by you in the early-mid 90's
-currently cheap enough in the second-hand market for you to get one on a whim

If you are thinking of an analog polysynth, the list of possibilities is actually rather short because most of them are very expensive. And the ones that are not expensive are generally not regarded as 'underrated,' e.g. the Roland Alpha Juno's or the Kawai SX's.

So I would guess either a digital synth or a hybrid digital/analog synth, such as an Ensoniq ESQ-1. But I don't hear any strong evidence for this kind of synth on any BoC tracks.

I'm sticking with the organ theory for now.

[Shut That Bird Up]

Hi Polar Sky.

Sorry but for some reason none of my Private messages to you have gone through. I don't know why this is ? I have sent a couple of PM's to another user on this subject and they went through fine.

[polar sky]

Hi Polar Sky.

Sorry but for some reason none of my Private messages to you have gone through. I don't know why this is ? I have sent a couple of PM's to another user on this subject and they went through fine.

No I did get the links and thank you! And yes that is a great machine! My friend has one and I know exactly what you mean. Thanks for sharing.