Quantcast
sample based synths - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
sample based synths
Old 13th November 2012
  #1
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
sample based synths

Old 14th November 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Rogue Ai's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
There is nothing wrong with sample based instruments. You don't want to synthesize a realistic piano do you? However, I use sample synth sounds all the time, but they are from my own synths (hardware). Even one of my hardware synths is sample based (K1r) yet I still love it.

Someone's going to post a brilliant 100% sample based song. I can feel it.
Old 14th November 2012
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
that notices the quality difference when comparing sample based software synths to an organic software synth?
There's nothing organic about synthesizers, soft or hard.

Quote:
If everything is a prerecorded sound than we aren't really producing music or expressing ourselves through it.
Several decades of rap, hiphop and drum and bass would like to disagree.

Quote:
It seems to me the industry is being dominated by people who don't know anything about music in the first place.
On the contrary; they know a lot about music.

Your arguments lack references and a solid basis.
Old 14th November 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Praxisaxis's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
No one should ever say "today's music sucks compared to <insert old school reference> " or some variation on that, or the converse, "this is the future of music and all that old stuff is boring" unless they're prepared to get in and get dirty with real arguments and real evidence.

I say this for the simple reason that people have been making some variant of that claim about any number of different musical genres for literally hundreds of years - it seems to be a never-ending cycle. The only thing which is boring is to re-iterate those sorts of claims without any basis for it aside from personal preference.

On a different note, in this era where almost all music goes through some phase of digital production, where practically the whole lot can be regarded as "sampling," which many affects people's work practices (esp editing and signal processing), complaining about sampling as a technology platform for music making seems ill-informed. There is nothing inherently lo-fi or low quality about digital technology in and of itself. Quite the contrary.
Old 14th November 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Demokid's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I love the sound of old sample based synths. Synths with shot samples of raw waveforms like Prophet VS, PPG, PolyEvolver. The anti-aliasing and digital artifacts give the synth a character. Add some nice reverb and it sounds fantastic. New synths just sound too clean and sterile.

\\Demokid
Old 14th November 2012
  #6
Deleted User
Guest
You are making a generalization. There is no such thing as an organic software synth. Samples are actually better than emulations because they came from the source. They can be long loops which include noise and detuning. Samples get more complicated than a basic synth and thats why Roland sold so many. A real waveform from a Moog will sound better than an emulated waveform that someone programmed. All synths sound different. Some have better filters and effects than others. Ones that can sample have a leg up. Classic electronica of the 80s & 90s used samplers and it wouldn't have sounded as good without it.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Ai ➑️
There is nothing wrong with sample based instruments. You don't want to synthesize a realistic piano do you? However, I use sample synth sounds all the time, but they are from my own synths (hardware). Even one of my hardware synths is sample based (K1r) yet I still love it.

Someone's going to post a brilliant 100% sample based song. I can feel it.
I do not at all want to sample a realistic piano because I have a piano and I'll just play it and record it.

It's not at all a generalization, you're manipulating a recording with a sample based synth versus generating and manipulating a signal for a synthesizer, hence the term organic, it's from scratch. It is a machine creating a sound versus a recording of a sound already made. Perhaps synths are not as organic as a real instrument but that depends on how you look at it. Synth is a warming compliment in Philip Glass's music. When I'm playing with trilian I hear redundant "twangs" as you switch from one note to another because it's a recorded sound. If I hit it at a different time I get the alternate recorded sound with no twang. This is pretty lame compared to a bass guitar or a synth version of bass. A synth bass may not have authentic dynamics such as plucking a string but it's definitely not on the same level as just recording something repeatedly to make it seem dynamic. Before I even knew it was sample based, I was watching a video on trilian and I could hear the quality difference as this guy plays it while remarking about how amazing it is. That was when I started doing more research so that I don't waste $300.

As for saying today's music sucks, the only reason I shouldn't say that is because there has always been lifeless crap music from people who don't know anything about music theory. There's no artistic value in what they're doing, these songs might sound cool in the car but they have no depth, it's purely composed of things that sound cool, so, it's stylish but has little put into it. It's like everything is just being recycled to such a point where it has lost it's worth or the person creating it just barely knows how to play an instrument in the first place. If you disagree with this, please just go listen to maggot brain from funkadelic. There is intense emotion in his guitar playing and you can definitely do that with a synth, it's very raw and dynamic. That emotion is almost completely absent from pop culture. Yes, all that other stuff was phased out for a reason, I fully agree with that to the extent that I even follow cultural phases but sampling is limited to what someone else has already created for you and the emotion left in that. It was new and interesting 20 years ago. Now it has been rehashed to death unless they're poorly playing instruments: How to play guitar like Lil Wayne - YouTube

(note that i am posting that video as someone who listens to rap almost exclusively at times. rap has always been my natural gravitation)

As for replications, I would much rather use something along the lines of MiniV as opposed to someone sampling the minimoog. If I can't get the original thing and play it than a sample surely isn't going to make up for that. Of course someone can post a brilliant 100% sample based song, the same way Madeon can make a brilliant pop culture mix with the launchpad. Would I want music to be based in that? No. It's a unique thing that this one skilled person did, it's still limited. That doesn't mean I would want music to be based in it nor would I want every painter trying to create murals from other paintings, but I'm sure someone could do that right.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
As for saying today's music sucks, the only reason I shouldn't say that is because there has always been lifeless crap music from people who don't know anything about music theory. There's no artistic value in what they're doing, these songs might sound cool in the car but they have no depth, it's purely composed of things that sound cool, so, it's stylish but has little put into it.
Personally, I've never gotten this whole "popular music sucks" thing some people rant about. Don't like it, don't listen to it. Never understood why some people seem to be so bitter about it.
Old 14th November 2012
  #9
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I personally think soft synths are really bad !

Sample based, is alright... but boring

Go hardware! ... digital or analog ... hardware always!

Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Head
 
Antn's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosj ➑️
I personally think soft synths are really bad !

Sample based, is alright... but boring

Go hardware! ... digital or analog ... hardware always!

e-mixmaster.com
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shponglefan ➑️
Personally, I've never gotten this whole "popular music sucks" thing some people rant about. Don't like it, don't listen to it. Never understood why some people seem to be so bitter about it.
I don't care if it's popular, I care if it's good quality. I surely won't listen to crap although "rack city" is fun to listen to in small doses. The reason that ties into popularity is because of things like this: Famous Violinist Joshua Bell Plays At Metro Station
The industry gets taken away from talented artists because the average person does not recognize quality or talent when they see it, thus the market is composed of whatever. The Black Keys play instruments and make inspired music, they are popular and I like them.

My rant is about the quality being lost. If they spent all their time producing a product with that in mind we would have some serious high quality products being put out by this company as opposed to prefab garbage. Seeing as people don't recognize this and apparently don't even want to hear it I think it's worth ranting about.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
I do not at all want to sample a realistic piano because I have a piano and I'll just play it and record it.
That's great, but not everyone has this.

More importantly: it is not trivial to record a piano well. The room, the mics, the whole shebang just has to work, otherwise it's going to sound bad. This is why you should rather buy a multi-gigabyte library recorded by professionals as opposed to rolling your own; not to mention the fact that they can rent a Steinway for a long time and you may be stuck with a lesser brand.

Quote:
It is a machine creating a sound versus a recording of a sound already made. Perhaps synths are not as organic as a real instrument but that depends on how you look at it.
No, there's little room here for doubt.

You're not touching the parts that make the sound directly.
Synthesizers have no resonant body; all their sound has to be converted into moving air by electronic means.
The desired vintage machines lack controls such as aftertouch and velocity sensitivity, which themselves are pale copies of the expressiveness you can have with an actual string or wind instrument. Newer units have it, but lack the character of earlier machines.
Even with a piano, where you don't touch the strings directly, the connection is more direct than a circuit being closed. A synthesizer literally does not give a damn whether the voltage was generated by a human being or a sequencer; there would be no difference whether you were a million miles away or inches removed, as long as the voltage would roll in.

Synthesizers still have the whole "all you do is press a button and a song rolls out" - even from musicians who should know better. The "but this is organic!" is merely a coping mechanism so it doesn't end up all the way down in the pecking order; and indeed, with actual hardware, one can pride oneself on "at least I'm not a dude with just a laptop".

Quote:
When I'm playing with trilian I hear redundant "twangs" as you switch from one note to another because it's a recorded sound.
Well, that's because Trillian's engine is scripted to do that. The twangs are entirely predictable and hinge on a few simple conditions. Find out what those are, and avoid them if you don't want to hear them.

Quote:
As for replications, I would much rather use something along the lines of MiniV as opposed to someone sampling the minimoog.
Of course - can't disagree with that. But that's because sampling as in Kontakt can't do PWM, can't do FM, can't do sync - while not impossible, the engine simply does not offer that possibility while models usually do. Plus, for portamento, the sample model breaks down - smooth transitions are effectively impossible because slowing the original sample down also introduces artifacts.

Most importantly, sampled versions botch the filter, but then again, having a dozen modeled implementations of filters around is not cheap. On the JV series, all you get is the digital Roland multimode (with awful resonance - gets completely useless on any level over 90 or so); you can't kid someone into thinking that that can emulate a JP, Oberheim, Moog and ARP at the same time while the filter's not being changed.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer ➑️
That's great, but not everyone has this.

More importantly: it is not trivial to record a piano well. The room, the mics, the whole shebang just has to work, otherwise it's going to sound bad. This is why you should rather buy a multi-gigabyte library recorded by professionals as opposed to rolling your own; not to mention the fact that they can rent a Steinway for a long time and you may be stuck with a lesser brand.
I understand that. A midi device is something you work with though and the computer picks up on the dynamics of what you're doing.


Quote:
No, there's little room here for doubt.

You're not touching the parts that make the sound directly.
Synthesizers have no resonant body; all their sound has to be converted into moving air by electronic means.
The desired vintage machines lack controls such as aftertouch and velocity sensitivity, which themselves are pale copies of the expressiveness you can have with an actual string or wind instrument. Newer units have it, but lack the character of earlier machines.
Even with a piano, where you don't touch the strings directly, the connection is more direct than a circuit being closed. A synthesizer literally does not give a damn whether the voltage was generated by a human being or a sequencer; there would be no difference whether you were a million miles away or inches removed, as long as the voltage would roll in.
You are not touching the parts that make the sound directly, you are, though, playing an instrument with dynamics. There is a loss of that in antique analog synths and you can hear that when listening to music from the 70s and you can clearly tell what they needed to improve upon with those synthesizers. That was back then though.

Quote:
Synthesizers still have the whole "all you do is press a button and a song rolls out" - even from musicians who should know better. The "but this is organic!" is merely a coping mechanism so it doesn't end up all the way down in the pecking order; and indeed, with actual hardware, one can pride oneself on "at least I'm not a dude with just a laptop".
"this is organic, depending on how you look at it" There was no cry marked with an explanation point. Electricity is a natural element as far as I know and even if it wasn't you are still creating something from scratch. If you can't hear the quality difference between this and this than that's on you, also, if you can't hear the difference that would mean you don't know what I'm talking about in order to defend it.

*edit* so it's not as truly organic as an acoustic guitar but it's almost as organic as an electric guitar. The actual reverberation is not created by your hand.

Quote:
Well, that's because Trillian's engine is scripted to do that. The twangs are entirely predictable and hinge on a few simple conditions. Find out what those are, and avoid them if you don't want to hear them.
Which is why I will use a synthesizer, that generates a sound, with a nice x-y pad to go on the side as a pitch and mod wheel. So as to work with something and make it do what I want as opposed to working around a recording.

The emulation in synthesis only comes from the fact that it's a blank sound that needs to be shaped, in order to know how to shape it we study sound in general. It's not at all on the same level as a sample. My goal in synthesis is to create creative and interesting sounds and the emulation aspect is only for the sake of knowing where to start. Synthesis allows us to do things we could not normally do and is worth a lot alone where as sampling will always be a copy of something. I understand the money and opportunity standpoint as I do use drum samples but if I wanted to create something authentic than those are just place holders until I can get access to real drums. Drum samples work because they are raw samples and you can process them in order to make them sound intentionally less authentic, so as to keep them from being imitation drums. It also allows you to use noises that aren't even from a drum kit for a drum pattern. That's a benefit of sampling. If your music is purely composed of samples at all times than you have ceased progress in creating music as there is no music theory involved in that. Sampling is useful, it's a compliment though.

Trilian might work for some people and some people might not even hear the difference but it's a flawed form of creating music. I don't need to slow down the samples to hear the transitioning or whatever it is that I'm hearing as the sample works with the synthesizer (bare with me on that as I really don't know it inside and out, I just know what I'm hearing compared to having playing woodwind and acoustic instruments my whole life). A microscopic detail yes, but worth bringing to people's attention, and worth avoiding paying for imo. It's just another way of avoiding the work and effort that goes into music, they could have learned to program a synthesizer and instead chose a recording.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosj ➑️
I personally think soft synths are really bad !

Sample based, is alright... but boring

Go hardware! ... digital or analog ... hardware always!

e-mixmaster.com
So soft synths bad / digital hardware good, even though digital hardware is basically a soft synth in a box (DA converters notwithstanding).
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
, they could have learned to program a synthesizer and instead chose a recording.
By that logic, anyone playing a guitar they didn't build himself is not a true artist.

And a painter that doesn't create his own paint and relies on paint that others fabricated, isn't really a true painter at all.

Has it occurred to you that people choose tools for a job based on their usefulness and not based on the appeal of the tool itself? Grow up...
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
My rant is about the quality being lost. If they spent all their time producing a product with that in mind we would have some serious high quality products being put out by this company as opposed to prefab garbage. Seeing as people don't recognize this and apparently don't even want to hear it I think it's worth ranting about.
Commercial music is about what sells. And what sells becomes popular. So you're basically ranting about what is popular not living up to your own individual standards: but so what? You're the target audience. Everyone else is. And if the majority is buying what is being sold, then that's what's going to continue to be sold.

So I don't see the point of ranting about it...
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock ➑️
By that logic, anyone playing a guitar they didn't build himself is not a true artist.

And a painter that doesn't create his own paint and relies on paint that others fabricated, isn't really a true painter at all.

Has it occurred to you that people choose tools for a job based on their usefulness and not based on the appeal of the tool itself? Grow up...
lmao, that's terrible. no, art comes from within you. you need tools to express yourself emotionally. it's called katharsis. a sample can carry this but is limited. by creating your own paint, you might get a very specific color you are looking for, but you aren't necessarily improving the ability to express yourself. which is why you're 100% wrong and also a bit rude. it's very typical to blindly defend something just because you use it. you completely disregarded all intelligence presented, perhaps unorganized at worst, and insulted me. but i need to grow up? the person I quoted in my last post responded with information and perspective. he is intelligent. you show no signs of that.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
It's just another way of avoiding the work and effort that goes into music, they could have learned to program a synthesizer and instead chose a recording.
FFS, using pre-recorded instrument samples is hardly "avoiding the work and effort that goes into music". That's like saying a person who doesn't build their own piano is avoiding the work and effort that goes into music.

The work and effort that goes into music is primarily arrangement, not dialing in a synth sound.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shponglefan ➑️
Commercial music is about what sells. And what sells becomes popular. So you're basically ranting about what is popular not living up to your own individual standards: but so what? You're the target audience. Everyone else is. And if the majority is buying what is being sold, then that's what's going to continue to be sold.

So I don't see the point of ranting about it...
the point is it's a shit product that people are eating up. i don't care if it's popular or not and i have said that before.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shponglefan ➑️
FFS, using pre-recorded instrument samples is hardly "avoiding the work and effort that goes into music". That's like saying a person who doesn't build their own piano is avoiding the work and effort that goes into music.

The work and effort that goes into music is primarily arrangement, not dialing in a synth sound.
that is not at all saying that. a sample has no personality but what was already given to it. you express yourself through a piano naturally. so, yes, that would be more evident toward saying a synth is less organic but you're more concerned with an argument than the point of what i'm saying. if a person programs a synth they express themselves through it. they create sounds that vibe with themselves and then they play them.

with a sample based synth you play someone elses music but have a lot more control over it.

so no, i'm not saying you need to produce your own paint, you're missing the point.

even if you only ever used the presets on a software synth, you're still utilizing more creative control.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
by creating your own paint, you might get a very specific color you are looking for, but you aren't necessarily improving the ability to express yourself.
Speaking as someone who also paints, I disagree with this. When selecting colours, artists can either choose prefab colours or mix them (although most artists do both as needed). But I've never heard of an artist taking flak because they chose to use a tube of burnt sienna or viridian green, rather than mixing it themselves.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #22
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shponglefan ➑️
Speaking as someone who also paints, I disagree with this. When selecting colours, artists can either choose prefab colours or mix them (although most artists do both as needed). But I've never heard of an artist taking flak because they chose to use a tube of burnt sienna or viridian green, rather than mixing it themselves.
no, but you would hear flack if they chose a washed out crappy version of it that stood out in their painting. or a better analogy would be, you would hear a lot of flack if the person sampled that color from another painting and put it on theirs, leaving the remnants of the old painting and it would be stiffly fit in as opposed to artistically painted in with fresh paint.

so a sample based synth would basically be more like if they gave you $300 worth of painting on paper with some tools to manipulate it and squeeze it into your art.

is this going to be a perfect analogy to painting? no. they're 2 different things. please just think about what i'm saying instead of worrying about dumb technicalities *sigh*
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
with a sample based synth you play someone elses music but have a lot more control over it.
Your position seems inconsistent.

I have a digital piano; it contains piano samples someone else played, but obviously I can play it and exercise control over velocity, sustain, pitch, etc. So in your eyes, that's okay.

I have also have various piano libraries on PC. By the same token, I can sequence those and exercise similar control (albeit via sequencing either recorded or arranged by hand). But from what I can gather, this would not be okay in your eyes.

However both scenarios are fundamentally the same.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
by creating your own paint, you might get a very specific color you are looking for, but you aren't necessarily improving the ability to express yourself. which is why you're 100% wrong and also a bit rude.
I like the part where you start by agreeing with me, then turn around and say I'm 100% wrong.

I could have phrased it like this: by creating your own synth sound, you might get a very specific sound you are looking for, but you aren't necessarily improving the ability to express yourself (compared to using a preset).
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #25
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shponglefan ➑️
Your position seems inconsistent.

I have a digital piano; it contains piano samples someone else played, but obviously I can play it and exercise control over velocity, sustain, pitch, etc. So in your eyes, that's okay.

I have also have various piano libraries on PC. By the same token, I can sequence those and exercise similar control (albeit via sequencing either recorded or arranged by hand). But from what I can gather, this would not be okay in your eyes.

However both scenarios are fundamentally the same.
then sorry but get smarter, or more intuitive or something. i'm really not trying to be rude but i dont know what else to say about it. unless you overlooked something i wrote.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #26
Gear Nut
 
rakim87's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock ➑️
I like the part where you start by agreeing with me, then turn around and say I'm 100% wrong. And then later you say I'm the one who has no intelligence.
well, you're either missing the point or just enjoying the argument. can't negotiate with ignorance i guess. enjoy yourself.
Old 14th November 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
THIS JUST IN

Vangelis is a sham!!!!! He used Yamaha CS-80 presets!!!! His art has NO VALUE!!! He merely played OTHER PEOPLE'S MUSIC!!!!!

Not to mention, he also uses sampled sounds!!!

according to rakim87, that is.
Old 14th November 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Praxisaxis's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
OP, this whole thread is a kind of circular argument... people do this occasionally - come in and post what looks to be a question or point of discussion, but it turns out they already think a certain way and simply want to convince everyone else.

This appears to be your argument:
Contemporary music sucks. Also, you wish to argue the case that digital samples lead to lifeless music. If music is lifeless, then samples must suck. Contemporary music does suck, therefore samples suck. And so we can conclude that contemporary music sucks.

Problems with this view: 1) the music you think sucks might do so inspite of using samples, and may be lifeless for any number of reasons. 2) it's possible that not all contemporary music sucks, and you just haven't heard it all yet or listened well enough.

I think you should listen more widely, and touch up on some electronic music theory - some of the most technical proponents of it point out that involving concrete samples can enliven an electronic recording in a way which is unparalleled by any system of pure synthesis. This would, for example, have a lot to do with why hiphop is so effective - the samples, taken from old vinyl traditionally, provide "grit" "dirt" and "ambience" which are difficult and comparatively impractical to emulate using synthesis. I don't mean to be condescending, but to state otherwise is just demonstrates ignorance.

Ignorance and the internet get along very well. For one thing, the view that there's no traditional musical skills in contemporary pop production is a flawed assumption for a number of reasons; moreover, the kind of skills required to produce this music expand on traditional skills in ways that lay people and traditional musicians often don't notice. This music is put together by teams of people, each possessing different expertise in different areas, and are always very experienced and mostly highly qualified. To complain, for example, that the lead singer didn't go to Julliard is a very naive position to take.

I'd also suggest listening more widely and more intently. There's plenty of "sample based" music which is entirely at odds with your description of contemporary music.
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakim87 ➑️
then sorry but get smarter, or more intuitive or something. i'm really not trying to be rude but i dont know what else to say about it. unless you overlooked something i wrote.
Good comeback!

(And yes, you are being rude and kind of hypocritical given you accuse others of that.)
Old 14th November 2012 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock ➑️
THIS JUST IN

Vangelis is a sham!!!!! He used Yamaha CS-80 presets!!!! His art has NO VALUE!!! He merely played OTHER PEOPLE'S MUSIC!!!!!

according to rakim87, that is.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!




πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 178 views: 32738
Avatar for Stef.L
Stef.L 20th April 2010
replies: 665 views: 125529
Avatar for electricstar
electricstar 22nd January 2012
replies: 219 views: 22194
Avatar for Kevin@Arturia
[email protected] 22nd May 2018
replies: 37 views: 6695
Avatar for amph
amph 16th December 2020
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump