What did people use to make electronic music with in 1990?

[LPChip]

Of Eminem, I'm sure.

The reason why I suspect groups like 2 unlimited, is that the songs are repeative in their construct, like a tracker. You can hear how the patterns get back and evolve. You have a certain sound, and things get added to that. A sequencer is one big and long recording.

The other option would be mixing like a DJ, using short clips.

[g]

Of Eminem, I'm sure.

A reference would be nice, I tried to find some more info but everything is called a "tracker" these days, so no luck

A sequencer is one big and long recording.

I completely disagree with that statement.

[Sam_Zen]

Quite useless to agree or not. It's semantically a wrong expression.

A sequencer is a tool, which is not the same as some type of recording of the result.
I think the word 'sequence' was meant here by LP.
If so, 'one big and long recording' stays a bit of a too fuzzy statement.

But I agree, around 1990 the use of sequencers became broadly popular to produce base-material for a dance-song.
Of course Tangerine Dream using the Moog one, and Kraftwerk preceded this.

In the beginning sequencers were a tool without any direct sound output. Not like in e.g. Rebirth.
A row of 8 or 16 pots set at a certain value, scanned by a stepping-clock, not producing a sound but an analog voltage to control sound-sources.

2 unlimited is a nice example. If I'm not mistaken, many of their tracks were recorded in the Wisseloord studio in Hilversum, NL.
My niece worked in that studio those days, and told me that they had bought a ARP 2600 then.

A huge analog modular synthesizer, with a few sequencers, synced of course, plus a wide piano-keyboard.
Stevie Wonder made quite some early recordings with his ARP 2600 too.
In the meantime some people made a VSTi of it.

[Louigi Verona]

You can hear how the patterns get back and evolve. You have a certain sound, and things get added to that. A sequencer is one big and long recording.

I completely disagree with that statement. In any sequencer there are patterns, even in hardware sequencers. Always were. And you can switch them around and play them again.

Actually, it is really weird you wrote that. Do you really think all of the people who are using sequencers actually have no pattern functionality?!! No offence meant, I am just curious.

[Louigi Verona]

2 unlimited is a nice example. If I'm not mistaken, many of their tracks were recorded in the Wisseloord studio in Hilversum, NL.
My niece worked in that studio those days, and told me that they had bought a ARP 2600 then.

Allright!!!!!
Now this is the kind of information I was talking about! There you go!
Sam, you are great! I did have a feeling you could help.

I will study what this ARP can do.

[Sam_Zen]

Nice. It was a bit intuitive to mention it, but maybe they are crucial in the developments.
All emphasis about that period is on the Moogs of course, due to clever publications.
In professional circles the products of EMS were well established too.
But when I chose to buy the Synthi AKS then, there was one other candidate in my budget : the ARP Odyssey.
I chose for a more open, basic system. The ARP was more keyboard based, so I guess modern users would have chosen that one.

Another elecronic scene one should explore of this time is 'Tonto - the expanding head band'.
Two producers, having worked with Stevie Wonder, using afaik Moog and ARP stuff as well.

[uncloned]

Thanks for all the input, although I am not satisfied. I think nobody really knows the answer.

I listened to Casio tracks, but they do not sound like the dance music I am talking about, with beautiful sounds, tight arrangements and very detailed sequencing. (Perhaps, those synths are capable of delivering that, but the tunes did not show that)

The amount of detail is what bothers me. If you listen to Scooter 1st album, you can hear lots of detailed stuff. In order to do that today, you would need a sequencer and edit every aspect of sound to get the same effect. They did it in 1994 without computers.

Also, I listened hard for any inconsistencies in synchronizations but found none - everything is perfectly in place.

Ahhh - now you define your question even more. In 1994 they were using MIDI between instruments - everything is being driven from one clock.

in 1994 instruments were microprocessor based - so saying it was done without a computer is incorrect. They did it in firmware.

If you want without a computer go to early Tangerine Dream (like ATEM) or Pink Floyd (On the Run from Dark Side of the Moon).

I understand that Kraftwerk built their first electronic instruments.

But... since you talk about dance music - which does not have a corner on those attributes of beautiful sounds and clear lines - narrows down things quite a bit.

If you want to know what was used in what era and what the attributes of the equipment was look here

http://www.vintagesynth.com/index.php

[g]

I'm seriously confused here Louigi, it seems you completely disregard any post stating that samplers, MIDI and computer based sequencers existed (and were common) in the (early) 90's.

Also, with all due respect for Sam Zen's experience, I think he's confusing the 90's and the 70's.

[Sam_Zen]

Yep, I must admit, I was confusing things.

[Louigi Verona]

g: I know very well what computer programs were available then - and they sucked.


I did however find te answer to the question on the Scooter fan site. It's in Russian but it shows the hardware they've been using throughout the years - lots of it.

Like here: http://www.scootertrace.ru/equipment/

[uncloned]

g: I know very well what computer programs were available then - and they sucked.

LV you are so prejudiced and have a closed mind sometimes.

FTII certainly didn't suck. And lots of people swear by impulse tracker.

And... all the hardware synths and sequencers were computer driven by then. Everything was midi based, which uses an UART serial chip, by the mid 80's

[Louigi Verona]

LV you are so prejudiced and have a closed mind sometimes.

I would be grateful if we keep personal insults out of this (and in fact, any) discussion - I very well know your opinion about me.

The reason why I say they've sucked, because I've actually worked with basically every major music software which was available in the 90s, which includes midi software and FT2, which, I know from personal experience, is incapable of producing same sonic results which I hear in Scooter albums. The sound quality of the engine itself and they kind of sample quality it can handle is suitable for hip-hop beats but not for clear sounds of rave electronic music, not speaking about filter work. I am 100% sure that Scooter did not use FT2 - and there is nothing close minded about it. It would be close minded to say that no professional used it, cause I cannot know, but I suspect that no professional musician in the 90s used FT2. My suspicion may be wrong but chances are it is right are higher.

As for midi software, it was there and with a cool soundcard it would give cool results, but such midi software, like Cakewalk, was very bad for writing electronic music - it was all about sheet music and notes. I actually tried doing rave music on Cakewalk in 2002-2003 and failed - it just isn't the kind of software.

As for midi soft which might've been bundled with synths, such software sucks now and there is a lot of chance it sucked then. ) in fact, Roland workstations had pretty cool built in sequencers, I was told by a friend who used it. I cannot check it but I trust him.)
On this one I cannot know for sure, of course, but I would say that it is highly improbable that a computer would've been used as a sequencer, besides you can see stuff like TR-909 and TB-303 on the list which they say they use extensively even today and those are not computer driven. Just too many different hardware. I think it is valid reasoning.

I suspect they would play it together, make a general scheme of the tune and then record every instrument track to the tape or whatever carrier was available and then mixed it with a studio mixer. I think that sounds realistic, what do you think?

[uncloned]

but you see - just because the software wasn't what you wanted (actually I suspect just isn't what you are used to) it therefore must suck.

I think cakewalk was fine software and in fact I was able to write electronic music with it. Cakewalk WAS one of the "professional" software packages out there.  For heaven's sake I wrote electronic music on an adlib card.

I think people who have a closed mind limit themselves unnecessarily. Just not liking sheet music and notes...  an input format is just that - its no different from a piano roll or a tracker grid fundamentally.

Using cakewalk one can drive a computer based synth or sampler via midi and create wonderful electronic music. People did all the time... and still do.

And I didn't mean it as an insult - I truly wish you'd open your mind sometimes. I firmly believe you limit yourself for no reason.

[Louigi Verona]

I think cakewalk was fine software and in fact I was able to write electronic music with it. Cakewalk WAS one of the "professional" software packages out there. For heaven's sake I wrote electronic music on an adlib card.

Perhaps you are right. I just suspect they did not do it because in 1993 it was just more common to use hardware than software. Why use software when you have a lot of hardware?  Why then use TR-909 as a drum machine or Virus synths or Roland workstations which have sequencers? It doesn't add up with all the clarity to me. It might come from an opinion which I have that at that time most professionals were suspicious of software and relied on hardware more.

As for "sucked" I meant that software was less detailed, less sophisticated. It was, in many ways - there is no arguing about it. By "sucked" I didn't really mean it was bad - I love FT2. Never liked Cakewalk though, it never worked for me.

[uncloned]

I agree totally that at the time most everything was hardware based - but the DX 7 or Casio CZ-1 (or CZ-101) or a drum machine were built around a computer chip and practically all of it supported midi.

The software for the most part was not as feature rich, yes. Though sometimes I think Sonar may have become too much of a swiss army knife.

(though FTII is hard to beat even now)