analog music is "warm" while software is "cold"...but why is cold bad?

[Agneton]

See topic title. This is, in my humble opinion, one of the more peculiar arguments 90ies lovers always bring up with regards to electronic music.

I think nobody explained it better than Huib Schippers aka Trilithon, although he was talking about it in the context of 80ies synth music versus contemporary 'newschool' synth music, however the discussion boils down to the exact same thing.

"Q: Some people thinks that the music of today doesn't have the same warm feeling as in the 80's, because of the software synths and that the musicians are using too much compression which makes it sound quite cold and hard. What do you think about the result ?

A: Cold and warm is just a matter of harmonic content of a sound over time. Making things sound “warm” has always been the realm of uncontrolled processes. We have had a very hard time to finally get to the point that we could control every aspect of a sound over time and now we are longing for the uncontrolled factor in a sound again. I would say it would be wise not to hand over the control to processes that can’t be influenced. Instead I would create “warmness” by generating variations of the parameters you would like to be influenced. 

Cold and hard is what technology has finally achieved. Why regard it as something that is unwanted. It is the summit of exactness and thereby a statement in itself. A statement we could never make in the 80’s however hard we tried! Hardness and coldness is what we were looking for in the 80’s, but always in vain. What word does not fit in? Space - Technology – Science – Hard – Robotics – Synthetic – Artificial – Warm. I think I know the answer to that one ."

 

(full interview: http://www.spacesynth.net/Interview/HuibSchippers)

 

I put the essential lines in bold, 'cause that is exactly explaining my feeling about it all. I was primarily fascinated by electronic music because it was hard, artificial, alienating, spacey and totally devoid of anything "human" (and I suppose that was actually exactly the point of a lot of electronic music makers, also in the 80ies and 90ies). Therefore, it's actually surprising to see how quite some people nowadays are trying to reach the exact opposite of that by emphasizing how 90ies goa is much 'warmer', how the analog machines had their little flaws which caused unpredictable sound output etc. etc. and which ultimately puts the "human aspect" back in the music, so to speak. But wasn't that what we were trying to get rid off?

[antic604]

There are three things for me here:

 

- warm vs. cold sound - it's a matter of control and at the same time of the randomness given by instruments: in old days a lot of parameters - oscillators, envelopes, filters, resonance, etc. - were controlled by voltage, which was analog and wasn't ideally precise, you had musical keyboard keys that responded to velocity and strength of touch, you had knobs that wouldn't be perfectly transmitting the twists; you had mixers, effects and even cables that'd introduce additional noise - all this contributed to the sound being fuzzy ("warm"), with tiny fluctuations and random changes on a micro-level and the notes would sound ever so slightly different every time. This stands in contrast to the very digital, infinitely precise world of today's VST plugins;

 

- sequencing - in the old days, synthesizers and DAWs would only allow you to store basic information about your tune, usually based on MIDI format, which covered broad but still pretty limited range of information; as a result, the synth/computer usually was only generating overall "shape" of the tune (which notes and tracks play when, etc.) and while recording for the CD / DAT tape the artists needed to tweak the individual parameters - faders, filters, effects, routing, etc. - manually. This was leading to music sounding more like live performance, with more unpredictability, soul and "happy mistakes". Contrast it with today, where you usually "dump" tracks to perfect and written-in-stone WAV files as soon as they sound good enough, copy & paste various segments over the time-line, put some highly controlled (i.e. the filter envelopes drawn by mouse) effects on top and there you go.

 

- musical education - this one I'm not sure about, but my gut feeling tells me it is the true - because the point of entry is so much lower today, i.e. anyone can pirate Ableton Live and VST plugins and publish their stuff on Soundcloud or Bandcamp, most people releasing music lack any musical knowledge and their creations are influenced mostly by what they hear around, trying to copy what they like (and are able to). Hence the huge uniformity in sound, resulting in very few artists actually standing out with their own, unique style.

 

As a result of those three factors today's music sounds more cold, precise and technically perfect but more often than not pretty straightforward, without soul, randomness and playfulness. Electronic music - IMO - doesn't need to be clinically clean and robotic to sound otherworldly or alien, quite the opposite actually. On the other hand new tech opens infinite possibilities, as evidenced by huge variety of ambient / chill / IDM music.

 

/rant off

 

So, to answer the original question - no, "cold" in itself isn't inherently good or bad. Like anything else, it should be used as a tool to express artist's ideas, thoughts or feelings.

[Djuna]

Therefore, it's actually surprising to see how quite some people nowadays are trying to reach the exact opposite of that by emphasizing how 90ies goa is much 'warmer', how the analog machines had their little flaws which caused unpredictable sound output etc. etc. and which ultimately puts the "human aspect" back in the music, so to speak. But wasn't that what we were trying to get rid off?

Who are "we"?

 

I think you and the interviewee kind of miss the point on some things:

1. Technology in music isn't here to create uniformity or a common perception about how music should sound or made, it's about having choices.

2. People 'going back' to older forms of creativity or technology isn't a denial of progress per se. Name one genre that isn't influenced by music (or how music was made) years before it existed?

[Agneton]

Who are "we"?

 

I think you and the interviewee kind of miss the point on some things:

1. Technology in music isn't here to create uniformity or a common perception about how music should sound or made, it's about having choices.

2. People 'going back' to older forms of creativity or technology isn't a denial of progress per se. Name one genre that isn't influenced by music (or how music was made) years before it existed?

 

Just realised the link to the interview in my initial post doesn't seem to work...here's the right one: http://www.spacesynth.net/interview/huibschippers... anyhow, just here to answer the question "who are we". It seems the interviewee was not only talking about himself but also his generation of electronic musicians and their endeavor to reach "hardness and coldness" with electronic sounds, "but always in vain" (quoting here), since, I assume, technology didn't allow that just yet.

 

I felt this idea strongly connected with my own opinion about electronic music and the main reason I fell in love with it, i.e. the "cold" touch rather than the "warmth" of acoustic music. That's all.

 

For the rest I definetely agree with your points of view and all the other arguments/ ideas that have been expressed in this topic so far

[recursion loop]

"Warm", "cold", "fat", "thin", etc, are very vague and misleading terms, most people put different meaning into them. Generally, these words may relate to the decidedly chosen aesthetics or just to the quality (character or lack of it, sonic fidelity, etc) of this or that synth sound.

 

E.g., a high quality digital hardware synth like Virus TI can make both "warm" sounds, like big unison pads, and "cold" sounds, like metallic FM leads used in in each and every hi-tech track. But both kind of sounds will still be perceived as harmonically rich and interesting. On the other hand, a poorly coded software synth can make the same sounds but they will be perceived as bland and boring or contain harsh frequencies and bad sounding arftifacts. Some people may say that the first synth is "warm" and the second one is "cold" referring just to the overall sound quality.

 

Btw., I know some people who say that when lables started to accept music made only with software the sound quality of the new releases massively went downhill. 

[antic604]

@recursion loop @Djuna - I fully agree with you both that technology is just a tool to be used to express yourself (I wrote as much above), but at the same time it's very clear that music - goa/psy in particular - has changed significantly with the advent of internet, VST, DAWs, etc. Within it's respective sub-genres there's so much uniformity nowadays - triggered by the hype for new Ticon I checked recent Iboga releases and swear to God all of them sound the same! Similar with Nano Rec., whose V/A "A Taste of South African Psychedelics" could well be an artist album, even though it's 18 different producers. And this extends to most other labels as well. There's whole industry dedicated to producing sounds, samples, presets and entire sequences ready to be used. 

 

Additional factor is over engineering of everything - I remember some time ago reading posts in music production forums where people would post "recipes" for good bassline, describing exactly which waveform to use, how and which filter to apply, which frequencies to cut and which to boost and by how much, which other sounds to avoid to not clash with the harmonics of the bassline, etc. At some point this turns into science of solving an equation or into writing a code, instead of artistic process of transferring one's emotions into notes and sounds...

 

Again, I'm not saying technology is somehow bad, but then I can't shake the feeling that the share of inferior, pedestrian and soulless releases is much greater than in the past, precisely because of the technology that makes it possible for anyone to produce & release music.

[recursion loop]

I remember some time ago reading posts in music production forums where people would post "recipes" for good bassline, describing exactly which waveform to use, how and which filter to apply, which frequencies to cut and which to boost and by how much, which other sounds to avoid to not clash with the harmonics of the bassline, etc. At some point this turns into science of solving an equation or into writing a code, instead of artistic process of transferring one's emotions into notes and sounds...

 

Again, I'm not saying technology is somehow bad, but then I can't shake the feeling that the share of inferior, pedestrian and soulless releases is much greater than in the past, precisely because of the technology that makes it possible for anyone to produce & release music.

The psybass is such a specific thing that it must be just done right, you can (and should ) get creative with other elements of your tracks. Compare, e.g., Tristan to U-Recken, they sound nothing similar but use the same or almost the same bassline.

 

But, yes, most novices and amateurs are trying to copy someone. I know this awesome feeling when you hear a sound in someone's track and think "holy cow, how on earth did they make it', and then after a bunch of long sessions this sound is here in your DAW. In theory this should be a basis for inventing your own sounds, but in practice not many people are reaching this stage. When you have 2-3 hours per week to make music (I believe this is true for most people making psytrance or other electronic music these days) you just stick to tried and tested approaches in order to get things done.

[antic604]

here's the right one: http://www.spacesynth.net/interview/huibschippers

 

Damn, that interview made me go back and search YouTube for videos of Laserdance & Koto music. I remember being in late primary / early high school, lying in my room on the carpet and listening to those on cassettes!

 

Few years later I even tried my own stuff in that style:

 

 

 

[thanosp81]

Is that Amiga? 

[antic604]

Is that Amiga? 

 

You bet! A600 + ProTracker + some samples stolen from Lizardking, Tip & Mantronix modules

[thanosp81]

Wow, talk about going back

[phobium]

You bet! A600 + ProTracker + some samples stolen from Lizardking, Tip & Mantronix modules

I was gonna say; Lizard King leads and protracker action!? :D

[Djuna]

Just realised the link to the interview in my initial post doesn't seem to work...here's the right one: http://www.spacesynth.net/interview/huibschippers... anyhow, just here to answer the question "who are we". It seems the interviewee was not only talking about himself but also his generation of electronic musicians and their endeavor to reach "hardness and coldness" with electronic sounds, "but always in vain" (quoting here), since, I assume, technology didn't allow that just yet.

 

I felt this idea strongly connected with my own opinion about electronic music and the main reason I fell in love with it, i.e. the "cold" touch rather than the "warmth" of acoustic music. That's all.

 

For the rest I definetely agree with your points of view and all the other arguments/ ideas that have been expressed in this topic so far

I don't know, it's such a matter of taste imo. Nine Inch Nails use a lot of analogue (vintage) hardware for example, but I wouldn't describe their music as warm. And there are producers who only use software who's music can be just that.

[HappyHorse]

Interesting topic

 

1. In general:

Hmm, I have heard a lot of modern produced music that is warm.

Doesn't all come down to:

a ) gear, but also ...

b ) mixing skills (what you do with the equipment is an art at itself, right?!)?

 

Cause guys like Hallucinogen, Etnica, Color Box,... they didn't work with 100% analog gear. Correct me if I'm wrong

So cold and warm is (imo) also due to your skills and the effort you put in making music sound like music.

Also, depending the style. I think nobody would care if (old) UX or Tim Schuldt would sound 'cold'.

But would we like chill out music to sound cold too? Depending what music and which emotions we want to feel during our listening it can variate what we desire.

 

2. More specific:

My perception: 'warm' is a more organic touch to the music. Warm as more dense and 'real' sounding.

For example: modern beats are mostly clean and more cold. Older beats made with drum machines were very deep, organic and even bouncy. Sounds didn't end abruptly, but were more multi-dimensional. Meaning they came from the deep and resonated after the sound form like a subtle echo; sounds didn't end so abruptly.

Goa came from deep roots: psychedelic rock and all the drum machines used in house, acid, techno,... So when I hear a track (from example M-Run) I can hear those drum machines work and I have the feeling it is 'more real' (don't know how to express it in a different way).

I think warm can go back to the psychological feeling one experiences during listening. To be honest many newer goa 'artists' don't use those separate sounds to coock up and blend it into goa trance. What makes it sound more generic (imo cold). So less a live in a certain way. Again, while most older goa came from a direct source... and was more of an organic blend - or better a natural evolution - of those styles.

 

3. Personnel conclusion:

So I think there are two main reasons that modern music can be perceived as more cold:

a ) new technological evolutions (that are - not to forget - gladly embraced by most older goa artists too nowadays when they are still making music).

b ) lack of musical background and history to create goa trance and psychedelic techno in the same way as it used to. Makes it different, and is off course the experience otherwise too.

But c ) depending on the artist and the listener it all variates to what we like also.

I make it no secret, I don't like the (new) more cold approach of music (in all music styles). I want deep drums and beats; sounds that resonate and don't die out but echo and subtly mixed with one another

Note: some new artists (in all genres) can make warm music with newer (digital) gear: music, transporting feelings with it and its creation is art. Art should be free. So only in our preceiving psychy we judge on our taste, and the quality we want it to carry.

But I think these older goa artists (and others) who are still carried on hands made a point to us youngsters. Quantity before quantity and going for the best production, being very original and digging deep in their genre (so we still remember them for that). If we strive for that and don't limit ourselves to quantity and ego, than I guess warm and cold probably don't matter at all (even though the perceiver will choose what suites him best - what doesn't mean quality and production aren't important as stated before).

[Imba]

Just released compilation but it's fucking amazing and it's not 100% analog but its super warm to me!

[Anoebis]

 

Cause guys like Hallucinogen, Etnica, Color Box,... they didn't work with 100% analog gear. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

Etnica did 100% sure... And I am 99% sure Hallucinogen did as well, I can ask around

[antic604]

Just released compilation but it's fucking amazing and it's not 100% analog but its super warm to me!

 

Indeed Tristan stands out from the Nano Rec. artists because his signature metallic / bubbly sounds are somewhat more random & wide (as in covering broader frequency spectrum), but I wouldn't call it "warm". At least this is how I personally perceive "warm" vs. "cold" sound, i.e. a lot of modern releases carve out very precise, very narrow frequency spectrum for each sound / track, so that it can be mastered louder via compression. As a result you end up with very clean, pristine and highly controlled sounds but played individually they'd all be very boring, one-dimensional. In the past the bassline or kick would contain a lot of overtones reaching higher frequencies, which added "fuzziness" to the sound and - combined with more organic modulation methods - would produce more lively results.

 

Now - this - is a "warm" sounding psychedelic trance, not to mention the weird 5/4 time signature (and obvious Juno Reactor influences):

 

 

From more recent stuff, I find Psilocybian's music very chunky, punchy and - as a result - very warm compared to other releases:

 

[Djuna]

Etnica did 100% sure... And I am 99% sure Hallucinogen did as well, I can ask around

You're maybe thinking that hardware means analogue, which is not necessarily the case. Etnica's typical FM sound in their leads for example is taken from the Nord Lead, a digital synth. Soms pads and stuff they used are also presets from digital romplers.

[antic604]

You're maybe thinking that hardware means analogue, which is not necessarily the case. Etnica's typical FM sound in their leads for example is taken from the Nord Lead, a digital synth. Soms pads and stuff they used are also presets from digital romplers.

 

Sure, but the sounds went through cables, external effects, mixing desk and were modulated by hand instead of drawing envelopes on a screen, etc. all of which added their flavour and character to the sound. Today's music is too perfect, so to speak

[recursion loop]

 

 

From more recent stuff, I find Psilocybian's music very chunky, punchy and - as a result - very warm compared to other releases:

 

For the record, Psylocibian tracks are 100% software, afaik. I've watched his tutorials where he shows how he makes all his sounds with Sylenth, Massive, Omnisphere and processes them wiith Ableton stock effects (which are known to be of very poor quality) and some Waves plugins. Also he programms and mixes all his stuff in Ableton, maybe he uses some MIDI controller to write automations, idk

 

On the other hand, his tracks are mastered relatively quiet and this may contribute to the "warmth" you feel in his tracks. There is often a tradeoff between loudness and the feeling of warmth and 3-dimensionality in music, and generally the current loudness standards are such that it is technically very hard to preserve the factors (dynamic range, frequency balance etc) which are responsible for "warmth" 

[antic604]

For the record, Psylocibian tracks are 100% software, afaik. I've watched his tutorials where he shows how he makes all his sounds with Sylenth, Massive, Omnisphere and processes them wiith Ableton stock effects (which are known to be of very poor quality) and some Waves plugins. Also he programms and mixes all his stuff in Ableton, maybe he uses some MIDI controller to write automations, idk

 

On the other hand, his tracks are mastered relatively quiet and this may contribute to the "warmth" you feel in his tracks. There is often a tradeoff between loudness and the feeling of warmth and 3-dimensionality in music, and generally the current loudness standards are such that it is technically very hard to preserve the factors (dynamic range, frequency balance etc) which are responsible for "warmth" 

 

Yeah, I know but somehow he pulls it off. And I'm also quite aware of the trade-off that you mentioned - that's what I meant in the post you quoted, but you've indeed put it more eloquently

[recursion loop]

Two examples which show that there may be at least two completely different kinds of "cold":

 

 "cold" as an artistic choise 

 

 

and "cold" as a result of overcompression and wrecked frequency balance 

 

 

I think the first one coveys the feeling of Space - Technology – Science – Hard – Robotics – Synthetic – Artificial  pretty well. The second one conveys the feeling "well, 95% people will be listening to it on their iphones, let's drop an Ozone preset over here and make it LOUD" 

[Squid]

I agree with antic on everything he said. I would also add that the artists in the 90s were influenced by totally different genres - like early techno, house, jazz, some of them had background in rock or punk music.

Most of these artists were trained musicians and invested thousands of bucks on equipment, which is an investment no amateur wannabe would make. There was a lot of bullshit, yes, but it was only a small share of everything that had been done during the classic period.

Even with these huge constraints in making music (old equipment, few possibilities for sound processing), there was plethora of individual styles and authenticity in music. I started my journey in Goa music with Spirit Zone. I could tell blindly only by hearing 5-10 secs of the track that this is Electric Universe, or this is Space Tribe, or this is Shiva Chandra, or this Ololiuqui...

Now what - most of the compilations sound like artist albums with minor differences in effects used. 

So it is not only a problem of analog vs digital in the end...It is a talent crisis, and huge uniformity with extremely short lifespan of most of the tracks. The age of hyper consumerism has left its mark even on our little scene...And when somebody like Nervasystem puts an album that is so distinct and intelligent, only a few people notice...

[HappyHorse]

Etnica did 100% sure... And I am 99% sure Hallucinogen did as well, I can ask around

 

You're maybe thinking that hardware means analogue, which is not necessarily the case. Etnica's typical FM sound in their leads for example is taken from the Nord Lead, a digital synth. Soms pads and stuff they used are also presets from digital romplers.

 

I also asked around with some artists I had contact personally. cause this discussion triggered my mind. I wanted to know once and for all. And as I assumed they confirmed what I was already thinking.

These were the artists replies on the question, if they used only analog synths and gear in the 90's

 

1) Kris Kylen:

Yes and no, with Oberheim matrix 1000, sh 202. But the rest is analogue style Roland JD 990 and JV 1080 but 70 s pedal box analogue and Mackie 32 /8 bus Mixer also analogue 3 x quadraverb alesis, Behringer Ultrafex II, Akai S3000 XL sampler with FX Board and HD and few more.

 

2) Bell Size Park

From 1994 70% of the sinthysizers where digital: Korg, Roland and Nord Lead where already half digital.

 

3) Chacra

Mostly analog. Some digital samplers and Atari st1024. Sure digital synth are from the late 70's. I used samplers which was digital of course: Akai and kurzweil. As far for synths yes all where analog.

4) Color Box

I would estimate that 80-90% of the instruments were samplers (actually the track Sample Your Mind was 100% sampler). I always had a sweet spot for samplers. Apart from that a few analog synths were used (2 x Braintec TB3, Novation Bass Station, Waldorf Pulse+ and the like). But again; mostly samplers which is why I still have most of the sounds on miscellaneous media like Jaz, Zip and EZ Drive media. The Clavia Nord Lead 2 is probably the most used synth on the album apart from the samplers. Virtual Analog that is.

 

5) Greg Staikos

Yeap they were digital if u're talking about hardware like nordleed 2 and yamaha dx7 for example.

 

6) Shiva Jörg

Software synts as well, but lots of midi and hardware.

 

7) Har-El

We didn't use virtual synths only analog and digital hardware.

All the digital synths started from the Yamaha dx 7 algorithmic that was too much realy these Japanese r crazy no one knew how to program it and the roland d-50, as I reacll. Plus many moduls that came after.

 

8) Hallucinogen

I had a kurweil K2000 and a sampler which were digital.

 

9) Sandman

Offcourse also digital : samplers ... DX7 ... casio ... jd800 .... what made sound we put it into the mix.

 

...more answers to come

[recursion loop]

Thanks, HappyHorse, very interesting.

 

I'm also curious what modern goa producers are using, like Mindsphere, JIS, Psy-H Project, E-Mantra, Ra, Antares etc, those who make really professional sounding music. Now there are plugins which do very convincing representation of old analogue hardware sound, like Diva, Monark, Tal Bassline-101 and others, are goa people using them? On the other hand, some of the classic digital hardware, like Virus and Nordlead, still weren't properly emulated in software, are these machines still in use?