When it comes to presets I...

[androidlove]

mostly use them as they are. i don't like to use a musical preset because it's a song in itself

i find using presets no diff than choosing a guitar of a french horn. the music is the work, the sounds are tools

[ugo]

On a professionally created site {even an amateur site} ...just like coffee shops do their own identity with labels, menus and graphics, magazines use their own content, retail stores/chains, television stations... anyone that's actually in business or that wishes to offer a worthwhile product that's distinguishable from the competitions.

so what you are saying is that, to bring the topic squarely back to music, anyone who is actually a serious professional in the music world would never be caught dead using someone else's presets, samples, or sampling sound that they themselves did not originally make?

[DevonB]

Worrying about the less than 1% of people in the world that are VSTi musicians listening to your music and 'recognizing' a sound, I think is silly. Does the sound work in my musicical content is my concern. If I need to tweak it, I tweak it to fit. If not, I use it as is. If you are so inspired to use init presets only, my hat's off to you. If this was the way things were 'supposed' to happen, synths would come with only 1 preset, but they don't.

Oh and the <cough> garbage that "professional musicians" don't use other people's presets or samples? Ya, only pro musicians use ProTools on a Mac and have large studios too. That's why you turn on the TV or watch a movie and recognize so many presets and samples already, right?

Devon

[shamann]

I rarely use presets, for several reasons: they take too long to sort through; they often aren't designed to be used in music, and generally tend to be too showy, too ornate; and generally I have trouble thinking about making electronic music without making my own sounds, it's a process as integral to the form as tuning a guitar. It also strikes me as fairly common that a lot of them just plain suck.

I've recently used a few presets on multi-effects but in most cases they were fairly simple things, and saved me the time of having to set stuff up the exact way.

[eduardo_b]

...when i listen to a song, what i am concerned with is whether or not the piece of music moves me...not who made the preset or if i might have heard it before...

My interest in this topic is a result of many years of observing the conundrum of wanting originality and also wanting more of what one likes -- be it music, film, art, writing. In each field of endeavor, sharing styles can result in similarities that appear to be borrowing and/or reusing, or even copying. It's the issue of the "same" yet "different." An analogy would be liking certain artists and thus wanting more of their work, but also not wanting it to all sound the same. To some degree it's contradictory.

It seems it's all about context. In listening to synths in songs, the context of the song can make similar synth sounds have "originality" or at least work well within particular songs. At the same time, certain truly unique sounds could be too obvious -- thus my concern about using at least some presets.

Worrying about the less than 1% of people in the world that are VSTi musicians listening to your music and 'recognizing' a sound, I think is silly. Does the sound work in my musicical content is my concern. If I need to tweak it, I tweak it to fit. If not, I use it as is...

Probably much closer to a hundreth of a percent. It really does seem silly, as I think about it, to be concerned about this.

I rarely use presets, for several reasons: they take too long to sort through; they often aren't designed to be used in music, and generally tend to be too showy, too ornate; and generally I have trouble thinking about making electronic music without making my own sounds, it's a process as integral to the form as tuning a guitar. It also strikes me as fairly common that a lot of them just plain suck.

This is precisely what I've noticed with some synths (more than others). In fact, those with the most distinctive but not necessarily musical presets (one of these synths was just officially released a few weeks ago) seem to get the most glowing responses ("I've stopped using all my other synths!").

So, I guess I should refine my concerns with presets to those that would be least likely to sit nicely in songs as musical elements. I don't necessarily mind sorting through presets if they are grouped in some meaningful way by the developer or sound designer, which isn't always the case.

[RTaylor]

On a professionally created site {even an amateur site} ...just like coffee shops do their own identity with labels, menus and graphics, magazines use their own content, retail stores/chains, television stations... anyone that's actually in business or that wishes to offer a worthwhile product that's distinguishable from the competitions.

so what you are saying is that, to bring the topic squarely back to music, anyone who is actually a serious professional in the music world would never be caught dead using someone else's presets, samples, or sampling sound that they themselves did not originally make?

Not really... Presets are pretty useful to assist in learning a program and as a demonstration of what it's capable of. As to loops and samples and presets other than those offered by effects filters that offer a preset "standard" for mastering and so on... I just don't see the point. With most synths, it doesn't take all that long to build a set of individual presets anyway... I don't see that a few nights of fiddling with a specific tool are wasted. It's a matter of craftsmanship and learning your tools.

It all has a sort of end effect of trivializing the actual product {music} in favor of the tools used to make it. It reduces the set of skills necessary to create "music" to the point that there is no point and reduces the quality of the product similarly... It's something like promoting the idea of mass produced, stamped products as superior to custom, handmade or tailor made. Personally, I can't wear clothes "off the rack" because I'm skinny and my arms are too long for stuff that's targeted at the lowest common denominator. That's not what we're dealing with in the arts anyway.

I don't use that pre-printed paper they sell in hallmark stores because it's just hokey. I don't use pre-cut stamps for anything other than fiddling around. Ditto clipart... In fact, the only time I can remember ever using clipart is maybe a border or something and I try to avoid it then. If I'm selling something, I figure I owe the customer better than that and if I'm using it in my own work it's not my work so it just doesn't fit.

We could go on to talk about how clipart reduces the market for artists and photographers and so on and how it reduces the level of originality and individuality across the board but, then again, artists and photographers are required to make clipart and stock photography and by the looks of most clip art stocks, that's the only way a lot of them would sell anything at all. Custom clipart like logos, headers, etc, at least gives us some level of individuality and forces companies to compete to provide a "better" product rather than just using what comes with their clipart package... {In addition to providing work for artists, photographers and musicians}

I'm not saying not to use them... all things are relative and it's really a matter of degree. I just think that a blanket... "It doesn't matter" is dead wrong. I do think that a bit more than just reselling something pre-stamped is necessary in order to offer a professional product.

[blaster78]

personally if a preset works for me then i'll use it. if not i'll do my own.

if they weren't meant be used then they wouldn't be there. preset spotting used to be so much fun in the late eighties/early nineties, now there's far to many to recognise (or perhaps i'm just less geeky) plus its much, much easier to roll your own on synths nowadays than it was back then.

[ew]

If it works for the material, I'll use it. If it doesn't, I won't. It's that simple.

If 100 of us here used the same instruments and the same presets and wrote a song apiece using only those presets, they wouldn't sound alike; I can guarantee you that much

Once again, it's not the tools; it's who's using them

ew

[mellotronaut]

I use presets as they are, more often i modify them and even more often they inspire me doing my own presets, but this needs some time, when i have a new toy.
I agree with ugo: it's always the user, not the synth, the presets, the host etc.
I made my first tracks almost entirely with a simple synth called cm 101 and CMuzys...i had no idea about preset-making, i just tried it....and holy weirdness..it worked.

m

[Hovmod]

Nothing like presets to learn how to program a synth.

[BERFAB]

I voted for the first one, but I also sometimes change them a bit, and I always look to them for inspiration.

I'm a simple guy. My music tastes were formed with the more organic sounds of rock and jazz groups, so my instrumentation tends toward drums, guitar, piano, organ, bass guitar and the occasional synth patch for sweetener.

Listening to the thousands of presets now at my disposal is mind blowing (sometimes mind-numbing), but always an inspiration taking me to places musically that I might not otherwise go.

I'm not a programmer--I'm more of a tweaker. My hat's off to you all that make these great presets that inspire me and help me make better music.

That said, I often wonder how you guys play 'name that preset' when you're listening to music or watching a movie. I don't think I could recognize more than a handful of the presets in my own (large and getting larger) collection. How you guys can claim to do this with the virtually unlimited resources that exist out there is beyond me. But like I said, I'm a simple guy.

Cheers
-B

[eduardo_b]

It all has a sort of end effect of trivializing the actual product {music} in favor of the tools used to make it. It reduces the set of skills necessary to create "music" to the point that there is no point and reduces the quality of the product similarly...

I don't want to say you're right or wrong about this, so I'll characterize your perspective as being both true and not true. Technology has affected the arts perhaps most significantly in terms of the availability of tools for those who are not trained or talented in the creation of music, graphics, video and so on. On one hand, this gives increased opportunity for individuals to express themselves creatively (regardless of the "quality" of the results) without formal training or traditional instruments, raw materials or supplies. At the same time, these technologies could make it seem that such creative endeavors are less dependent on true talent and skill than they used to be. In the end, however. these tools cannot substitute for a lack of creative abilities.

I will concede that the sheer volume of mediocre results increases exponentially with these tools. I recently looked at the forum for Kinetic on the Cakewalk site -- out of curiosity about how the software was being used -- and came across an enthusiastic message on the forum about how easy it was to create great music. I clicked on the link and was treated to an utterly mundane, mediocre song that hardly demonstrated the creative value of the software. Nonetheless, I suspect that in the right hands, some pretty cool songs could be created with it.

I think the trivialization effect is absolutely in play, but it says nothing about how good the results of using this software can be. So, using presets is not, in and of itself, a predictor of what can be done with them in terms of original, quality music. How they are used is everything.

I remember when a VSTi -- Surge -- came out and was hailed as the synth to finally allow true creativity. Frankly, I thought the presets were so uneven in quality that it was impossible to tell how good the synth might be. In response, I was chastised for using presets to test any synth. My response was that they were wrong. If the quality of the presets doesn't demonstrate the capabilities of the synth, I'm not likely going to spend money on it. Even if I don't end up using most of the presets, I expect them to exemplify the potential of an instrument.

Tools are only as good as those who use them. Photoshop is clearly capable of far more than most users will ever need, and many could achieve comparable results with a far less sophisticated graphics program. The quality of what is produced using this software isn't going to automatically be better because of the filters and other features that ship with the product. It will depend on the user's skills, abilities and dedication. The exact same thing can be said about music software of any category.

You make it sound as though the level of difficulty more-or-less determines the quality of the music (or artwork, or...) produced. I don't really see a direct correlation here unless greater technical knowledge becomes crucial for creating certain kinds of music. Just my opinion, of course.

[RTaylor]

It all has a sort of end effect of trivializing the actual product {music} in favor of the tools used to make it. It reduces the set of skills necessary to create "music" to the point that there is no point and reduces the quality of the product similarly...

I don't want to say you're right or wrong about this, so I'll characterize your perspective as being both true and not true. Technology has affected the arts perhaps most significantly in terms of the availability of tools for those who are not trained or talented in the creation of music, graphics, video and so on. On one hand, this gives increased opportunity for individuals to express themselves creatively (regardless of the "quality" of the results) without formal training or traditional instruments, raw materials or supplies. At the same time, these technologies could make it seem that such creative endeavors are less dependent on true talent and skill than they used to be. In the end, however. these tools cannot substitute for a lack of creative abilities.

You're right... it can't substitute for talent, skill or experience. My problem is more with the ideas around this whole thing than with the fact that things are easier.

The attitude that it's "ok" to use presets, samples and loops means that many people do just that rather than doing the research, practice and sheer work that's involved in making quality art. ...This gives you "kit" art that's not usually worth the time it takes to listen to it... It's the same idea as paint by numbers and model kits. Strictly for hobbyists. I expect more from someone that's professional. Period. If I buy an album that's simply pre-assembled commercially available loops... variations on the default drum loop that ships with Hammerhead or whatever, I'm going to be pissed off and I'll not be buying another album from the same source.

What would you think if someone tried to sell you one of those "project" greeting cards, that come with some graphics programs, as serious art?

I will concede that the sheer volume of mediocre results increases exponentially with these tools. I recently looked at the forum for Kinetic on the Cakewalk site -- out of curiosity about how the software was being used -- and came across an enthusiastic message on the forum about how easy it was to create great music. I clicked on the link and was treated to an utterly mundane, mediocre song that hardly demonstrated the creative value of the software. Nonetheless, I suspect that in the right hands, some pretty cool songs could be created with it.

I think the trivialization effect is absolutely in play, but it says nothing about how good the results of using this software can be. So, using presets is not, in and of itself, a predictor of what can be done with them in terms of original, quality music. How they are used is everything.

I remember when a VSTi -- Surge -- came out and was hailed as the synth to finally allow true creativity. Frankly, I thought the presets were so uneven in quality that it was impossible to tell how good the synth might be. In response, I was chastised for using presets to test any synth. My response was that they were wrong. If the quality of the presets doesn't demonstrate the capabilities of the synth, I'm not likely going to spend money on it. Even if I don't end up using most of the presets, I expect them to exemplify the potential of an instrument.

Tools are only as good as those who use them. Photoshop is clearly capable of far more than most users will ever need, and many could achieve comparable results with a far less sophisticated graphics program. The quality of what is produced using this software isn't going to automatically be better because of the filters and other features that ship with the product. It will depend on the user's skills, abilities and dedication. The exact same thing can be said about music software of any category.

You make it sound as though the level of difficulty more-or-less determines the quality of the music (or artwork, or...) produced. I don't really see a direct correlation here unless greater technical knowledge becomes crucial for creating certain kinds of music. Just my opinion, of course.

Not at all. Ease of use is a nice thing. It should make for an improvement in things and should help people progress further into whatever creative space they're into and allow them to do it faster. Good tools are essential. Unfortunately, I think the whole thing has fostered a sort of "it's good enough" attitude. Artists are content with less and the public really has no choice but to be content with that. Why is it, do you think, that most electronic music gets so little respect in serious music circles?

[androidlove]

when i said the music is the work and the presets are tools.i didn't mean it isn't work to design a preset. i was just sayin that my task is to concentrate on composition. and then the dreaded mastering

also, i don't equate presets with loops. loops are composition. i don't mind choosing guitar over french horn, but i would mind using someone else's guitar recording

[eduardo_b]

The attitude that it's "ok" to use presets, samples and loops means that many people do just that rather than doing the research, practice and sheer work that's involved in making quality art. ...This gives you "kit" art that's not usually worth the time it takes to listen to it... It's the same idea as paint by numbers and model kits. Strictly for hobbyists.

I suppose I should have noted in the beginning that I'm referring to hobbyists, amateurs or whatever one might call them. Not necessarily in terms of skill level but rather in terms of compensation (none) or desire for monetary return (none again). I'm guessing that well over 80 percent (probably 90 plus percent) of those on KVR are not professionals. I don't think the software music market would exist in its current form without a large number of hobbyists to support it.

It's really quite amazing the quality of software synths for a fraction of what hardware versions would cost, bringing this aspect of music into reach for many. But would most hobbyists do much with them without presets? I really doubt it.

...Unfortunately, I think the whole thing has fostered a sort of "it's good enough" attitude. Artists are content with less and the public really has no choice but to be content with that. Why is it, do you think, that most electronic music gets so little respect in serious music circles?

I think there are two answers here. First, the good enough attitude seems far less obvious with truly talented artists who hold themselves to high standards. But, at the same time, it does seem to be true that the typical consumer of music is content with even marginal work, which may be why they are also more than willing to spend 99 cents for a 128-bit DRM music file. The role of presets, samples and loops in this is difficult to assess, however, because even without these most of the stuff being released is basically crap.

As for electronic music, I started a thread a couple months ago about this on the basis of an article in Sound on Sound about this very topic. Electronica seems a disposable music form, but the reasons go beyond the use of presets and so on. I have sort of developed a theory about this.

I believe the vast majority of electronica lacks those qualities that make some music stick with us, play over and over in our heads, and create emotional bonds with us. And electronica is essentially synonymous with dance, not listening -- a huge difference. Some of it may have something to do with the bpm, although the Ramones and Green Day proved that this isn't always an issue.

Preset and samples are probably ideal for electronica, but again, I don't see this making these tools less compelling in other types of music in which melodies prove appealing in the ways of serious music. Artists such as Vangelis, Ray Lynch and others have proved that synth-derived music can have the qualities of music we remember and cherish.