Talk:Synthesizer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Son of my father

The song has been composed by Giorgio Moroder and the Chicory Tip's version was more successful than the original, how Moroder says in many interviews available on youtube, but it's still a cover. --Angelo Mascaro (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does (Release) music redirect here??

when an album is released buy a label, that's called a (release) music - at least, according to the DAB page. Why on earth does it instead redirect to the subsection Attack Decay Sustain Release (ADRS) envelope? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a hatnote on that section directing you to Art release. One of the problems that repeatedly comes up on Wikipedia is how to disambiguate words that have two or more different senses. This is particularly difficult when different senses exist within one subject area. In the present case, there are redirects to Attack (music), [[Decay (music), Sustain (music), and Release (music), which are the four parts of a musical note's envelope (at least, as it is understood in synthesizer technology). If you have got a better suggestion for how to differentiate "release" in this context, then by all means let us hear it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I now see better what you meant. The question really belongs on the disambiguation page for release. There were at least two errors there, which I have now fixed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Le Caine NPOV

Kaustin6969 has sprinkled Hugh Le Caine's name a few places in the article. Jerome Kohl was apparently unable to verify these contributions has marked them as needing citation. As this is a potential cast of WP:POVPUSH, I think these need to come out until the significance of Hugh Le Caine's contributions can be substantiated. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Gayle Young's book, The Sackbut Blues, ISBN 0-660-12006-2 for details about the dates of Le Caine's work on modular synthesis. This book, now O/P provides much documentation on the history of modular synthesis, for example, Hugh LeCaine 'demonstrating the electronic Sackbut, an instrument built between 1945 and 1948'. This is a quote from the sixth page of photographs between pages 34 and 35

When Bob Moog was starting to build synthesizer modules, he was advised to visit UTEMS, to meet Le Caine and see the studio. I was told by people who worked in the studio at the time that Moog visited Toronto. Young's book, p 134, confirms that Moog visited the studio 'several times and discussed electronic music with [Myron] Schaeffer who encouraged him to develop his own equipment."

My sources, except for Gayle Young, are mostly dead now. I met Hugh on a number of occasions, and heard anecdotes from the [later] studio director, Gus Ciamaga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustin6969 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, the best sources are published ones—it makes very little difference whether the authors are still alive. Out-of-print books are commonly consulted in libraries, and some of them are even (gasp!) available online. By all means insert these source citations. I have not seen Gayle Young's book (which is probably why I was unable to verify those claims), but I am willing to accept that it is a reliable source (the author is certainly very well-known in the field) until someone discovers evidence to the contrary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Gayle Young's book was apparently commissioned by the Canadian National Museum of Science and Technology. It's going to give a Canadian perspective and will need to be balanced with other sources. I do not find any better sources at Hugh Le Caine.

The other thing is that we don't just incorporate any verifiable statement into an article. There are also issues of WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE weighting to consider. ~Kvng (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that Le Caine was Canadian, it is hardly surprising that the best sources might be found in Canadian publications. Agreed that the issues of relevance and due weight must be taken into account, how should the be balanced against what appears to be mainly a question of precedence and influence?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal

Rob Kam proposed a split without explaination. I'm not excited about the proposal but I thought I'd create a discussion link so maybe Rob can explain the proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That it's too long to read comfortably. The three sections: about the history of synthesizers (referenced), types of synthesis (unreferenced) and about the roles of synthesizers in music (unreferenced) could each stand as articles the in their own right. --Rob Kam (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's hard to write these articles without including stuff that should preferably be included in the Synthesizer article. Synthesizer makes it easier by directing everything a reader may want to know to a single page. SpikeballUnion 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Splitting is not a clear improvement. The benefit of shorter articles does not outweigh the inconvenience of having to find what you're looking for in multiple articles. Length issue can be solved by more aggressive use of WP:SUMMARY or by outright removal of tangential material. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support split of history - See #Proposed split to History of synthesizers article. Let's take this incrementally and see how it goes. ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving lengthy information out to a child article and keeping a brief summary in each section here. @Rob Kam: Hopefully you are willing to undertake the task, and help address the banners you placed at the top of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take care of the splitting and adding banners to point to article histories. Rob Kam (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unreferenced content should be removed, not split into several articles. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not sure if this is still being debated, but my feelings are that the article would be better off being pruned and having all the trivia and lists chopped. There's an awful amount of fluff that might be interesting to synth aficionados, but doesn't actually add any value to the article as part of an encyclopedia. It's geek talk and gear porn. I'm sure that if you cut out the parts that don't need to be in this article, it will be a lot more readable and a lot shorter. It might make sense to move some of that information to other topics, but I would strongly advise against removing fluff from this page just to add a new article that nobody needs. 80.245.197.109 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I agree that the article as it stands (covering both Synthesizers and Sound Synthesis) is unwieldy at best. I think the subjects would be better served by separate articles. Separating them may also provide enough room to cover each topic in a more comprehensive way (IMO the current article leans heavily toward popular music and mainstream synthesizers, and doesn't adequately cover contemporary electronic music, nor does it address the countless common applications of modern day synthesizers beyond their uses in popular music. synthfiend (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

John Chowning and digital FM synthesis?

This article, also FM synthesis and others, increasingly claims that digital synthesis was the invention of John Chowning around 1971. I dispute this: Chowning's paper [1] focuses on analogue FM synthesis. I would recognise him as the inventor of the synthesis technique, and that he did this at that time, even that he later was instrumental in the development of digital techniques for the same approach. However it's unsourced - and I don't believe it - that he was working on digital synthesis so early.

Can anyone expand further? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion—it's likely the misinterpretation of sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted a digital assertion added by Kaustin6969. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Splitting to Envelope (music)

I was indeed in the process of splitting this to a separate article. I think it's long enough to deserve its own page, and I'm often linking to ADSR and so on on other pages. The synthesizer article as it stands is very long and I think we should be looking at opportunities to streamline it. Popcornduff (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a useful thing to do... Just plain Bill (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Module section

This section was deleted by Popcornduff because it was uncited (See discussion on my talk page). I added a citation copied from Sound module and that was deleted by Ojorojo. The fact that synthesizer sound modules exist doesn't strike me as something that critically needs a citation. Modules are mentioned in the lead so I think it's a good idea to have this information in the body. ~Kvng (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

All claims on Wikipedia need citations. Popcornduff (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. Material challenged or likely to be challenged requires citation. That's in WP:BURDEN which you referenced in reverting me earlier. Do you think there's something incorrect in this section? ~Kvng (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Correctness has nothing to do with it. See WP:VERIFY: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable [...] Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

I am challenging how verifiable this section is; to wit, I am saying it is not verifiable because it has no citations. There is no get-out clause here I'm afraid. Find a reliable source for the information. Popcornduff (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So you don't think it will be possible to find a reliable source that verifies that synth sound modules exist and that they have no keyboard? Have you tried a book search? WP:BURDEN cuts both ways. You can get upset about people adding unreferenced material. I can get upset about people deleting uncited but clearly verifiable stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, WP:BURDEN does not "cut both ways". It is unambiguous: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It should be easy to find a citation for this. In the meantime, in the interests of trying to fight the blazing wreck that this article has become, I'm going to keep uncited sections out of the article and continue work on the history section. Popcornduff (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This might not be so easy to find a citation for after all. Predictably, synth module (like most instrument pages) has nothing usable. I spent a bit of time Googling, but can't find a generic definition for synth modules we can use. I think that, sadly, like a lot of things on this page, it will require someone going to the library and hitting the books - but I encourage others to keep trying. Popcornduff (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on your logic, I think you need to send Sound module to WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that might not be so crazy! That article only has one source, and it's non-reliable. That might indicate that the subject isn't independently notable enough to deserve its own article (though I doubt it). Frankly, I'd vote to have no article at all rather than one composed only of poorly written original research - but I'm a deletionist, as you might have guessed.

In any case, your point isn't fair, because criteria for deleting articles and removing claims from article are not the same. If you object to that, then your argument is with Wikipedia policy, not me. Popcornduff (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Back to the immediate question. Do you really think an editor will have trouble finding a reliable source that verifies that synth sound modules exist and that they have no keyboard? ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked for a RS that gave a basic definintion of a sound module and the best I could discover was a "Home Recording for Dummies" book, which is not an ideal source. If you happen to have good sources at your disposal then please by all means add them.

Additionally, on reflection, I doubt that the subject requires more than a sentence or two in the article, let alone an entire section. Synth modules are just one variety of sound module after all. Popcornduff (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think the information was not presented well, fix it, don't just delete it. I'm not discouraged by "...for Dummies" titles. WP loves WP:SECONDARY sources like these. What are your reservations? ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I specifically asked about using Dummies books on the Wikipedia Discord and the consensus was that they can be used but they're not the highest-quality source. How's your own source hunt going? Popcornduff (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. So why not use that? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all.

My own work on this is proceeding according to WP:NODEADLINES. I'm working on this article from the top down. I started on 2017-10-04 and am currently in section 1.8. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not adding it because 1) it's not a great source 2) only mentions that synth modules exist, and doesn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question 3) it's not a critically important piece of synth information in the first place (as I said above it probably deserves a single sentence at most). It overall is not a paragraph that helps makes this article better even if it's cited - it contributes to the clutter of what is already a poor, disorganised, unencyclopaedic article.

My advice would be to drop it as it's not important, I'm working on a major overhaul of the whole article, and please make sure you cite anything you re-add as per WP:BURDEN. Hopefully soon we can work together to bring this article to a completely different place. Popcornduff (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think it only needs a single sentence, why don't you put that sentence in the article? My approach to editing is incremental. Regardless of future plans, I don't like to see edits that don't improve an article. This article continues to be viewed 1000 times a day so we should have our best stuff on display at all times. I hope you agree with this. If you want to do an overhaul that makes the article worse before making it better again, I suggest you need to do that in a sandbox somewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No response from Popcornduff so I restored these deletions. This was promptly reverted with comment, "Get consensus." I will post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music and see if there is anyone home. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The material in question is mostly uncited, user generated, or tagged "citation needed". As has been pointed out several times, WP:BURDEN makes it clear: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" (emphasis in the original). Continuing to ignore this with reverts may been seen as disruptive editing, which includes "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is also clear that WP:BURDEN applies only to material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged. Popcornduff said it would be difficult to verify but then cited an acceptable source. This does not look like a legitimate challenge to me. Anyone who knows anything about MIDI knows that synth modules exist and that the defining charistic of a module is it has no keyboard. I don't consider this likely to be challenged. See WP:BLUE. ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to advocate for the inclusion of reams of uncited information, it would be great if you could channel your energy into helping make this article properly encyclopaedic - for example by helping find sources for the technical terms we will need to cover. Popcornduff (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can do both. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split to History of synthesizers article

I think we should split the History section into a new article, History of synthesizers. Right now it's disproportionately long compared to the other sections, and contributes to making the article very long. Note that the article is currently 109,038 characters long; according to WP:SIZESPLIT, articles of over 100,000 characters "Almost certainly should be divided".

If it has support then I'm willing to handle the split myself (including writing a summary version of the history for the Synthesizer article).

This would be a useful step towards making the article more manageable - it's currently a mess of uncited sections, strange structuring, and missing information on critical areas (like the impact on music). Popcornduff (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this (and too many other instrument articles), it's difficult to know where to begin. While a readable history section would be beneficial, currently it's overwhelmed by details and techspeak. There are also too many one paragraph sections, "See also" links, and photos, which gives a jumbled, busy look. The "Impact on popular music" section has a lot of name dropping and "Typical roles" is almost all OR. Maybe this main article should serve as more of an overview, and spin off the highly detailed material (although a lot of it lacks references and smacks of WP:NOTHOWTO). Or shitcan all the unsourced text and start over. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep. The article sucks. "Difficult to know where to begin" is the problem I've been struggling with for months... so now I'm proposing we start with the History section.

Specifically, what I'm proposing is writing a new, much shorter version of the history section, and moving the existing section into a new article. I'm hesitant to outright delete the existing section, because some of it seems to be decent content (albeit difficult to verify, with lots of textbook references), and considering its length, it seems like moving it to a different article would be a good way to deal with it for the time being.

On the other hand, I could see how that strategy might be short-sighted.

In any case, I've started working on a condensed version of the History section in my sandbox with the aim of making it concise, focused, and well sourced. I intend to put it in this article eventually, whatever happens. Popcornduff (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm more than half way through reviewing this section and, yes there's a lot too it. I would support moving this to a separate History of synthesizers and putting a WP:SUMMARY in this article instead. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I support your proposal – indeed, there may be a couple of intermediate versions before the final encyclopedic article emerges. One thought: would the history section lend itself to a "timeline of"-type article? It's one way of stuffing a lot of details into a manageable layout (see Timeline of music technology, Timeline of portable computers, Timeline of rocket and missile technology, etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've invested in a couple of books - The Synthesizer by Mark Vail and Analog Days by Trevor Pinch. They should prove good sources... assuming I get my ass in gear and do the work. Rather amazingly, scribd.com lets you create a free trial account and then let you download the entirety of The Synthesizer as a free PDF. Popcornduff (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "timeline" article - we'd have to have a long list of dates and events for an article like that, and we're a long way from that level of knowledge and sourcing right now. Popcornduff (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've WP:BOLDLY thrown out the entire History section and rewritten it from scratch, with sources. It is far from perfect (it requires expansion, review, and lots of iteration), but I think it is an improved starting point, with hopefully a clearer beginning, middle and end.

Based on the sources I used, the view seems to be that synths as we know them began in the 60s with the work of Moog and Buchlar. There were precursors of course, such as the RCA, and these ought to be covered in a "precursors" section I intend to add. But the history of earlier (pre-60s) electronic instruments ought to instead be covered in depth in a different article. Popcornduff (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What different article are you referring to as a target for this information? I found the stuff I had reviewed so far in the History section to be interesting, important and well supported. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A History of synthesizers or History of electronic instruments article, if we needed it. What's more, the existing Electronic musical instruments article already seems to cover the material. This article is not the place for discussion of the ondes martenot, for example, which is not described as a synthesiser by sources afaik. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like this procedure of deleting viable material and then expecting another editor is going to pick it out of the revision history at some point and put it in it's ideal place. I've stated before that I think edits, including bold ones, should be a net improvement. I haven't had time to review what you've done but, based on your description, I'm not sure that was the case here. Can you explain why you think this was an improvement or, if not, how you justify making these bold edits that are not net improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• The previous version of the History section comprised a series of small sections without connective tissue. It jumps back and forth between periods. My version, while not yet comprehensive, is much more readable, with a clear beginning, middle, and end.
• Much of the deleted content is already covered in the Electronic musical instruments article, and is out of scope for this article. As I said above, sources trace the birth of the synthesizer as we know it to the 1960s. I intend to add a precursors section soon.
• Unlike the previous version of the History section, which contains entire paragraphs of uncited content, everything in my version is cited to a reliable source.
• The previous version of the article was 118,488 characters long; according to WP:SIZESPLIT, articles of over 100,000 characters "Almost certainly should be divided". My revision brings the article to a more sensible length. Popcornduff (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I think a clear, readable, well cited History section (even if it's not completely comprehensive yet) is much better than a poorly structured, poorly cited, rambling History section (even if the rambling version contains extra facts you deem important). Put both versions in front of a FA reviewer and ask which needs more work. Popcornduff (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is basically the same disagreement we have below in #Module section. I don't see any indication in eather discussion that you respect an incremental improvement approach to editing. It is hard for me to collaborate on this with you if that is the case. ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not an occasion for incremental improvement, because very little of the previous version was worth preserving. Sometimes you have to slash and burn. Sorry to hear you won't be helping. Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We have a disagreement and we don't have consensus on how to proceed. I'm not interested in getting in an edit WP:WAR but that doesn't mean you WP:OWN this article. ~Kvng (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Weren't you supporting moving the previous History section to another article and putting a summary here instead a few days ago? Popcornduff (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, still am. I would be happy if we created History of synthesizers or History of electronic instruments or improved Electronic musical instrument and then summarized it in the History section here. That's not what happened. I can make that happen. Do you have any objections? ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to cover the history of synths in more detail somewhere else, then I think that would be a good move. It's a long history, longer than we have space to cover in the synthesizer article, and an important subject.

But I'd like to stress again that I don't think much of the material I removed is very useable. It's all some combination of poorly written, poorly sourced, or not integrated into the bigger picture (as part of an actual encyclopaedia article that reads smoothly from beginning to end). I think Ojorojo gave a good assessment of its problems above. I know I originally proposed splitting, but I don't think it would be the wisest route. A truly good "history of synths" article would not resemble that material.

Let's not just create another rambling, incoherent, poorly cited musical instrument article - we have hundreds of those. Popcornduff (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When it becomes apparent that trying to save poorly written and referenced material is more trouble than it's worth, the only alternative is to remove it. I think the article is making good progress from where it was just a month ago and would like to see it continue. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, weighing in here with what might be a third opinion entirely. I have a well-used second-edition (2000) copy of Vail's Vintage Synthesizer sitting beside me (fwiw, Vail's not the author so much as the editor). Regular reference throughout is made to previous works about the history of synthesis, so I'd contend that the subject is more than adequately covered elsewhere, and that History of synthesizers would not only be a magnet for trivia and fancruft and techspeak one-upmanship but redundant with multiple and better external expertise. (Of course, the advantage of such a magnet would be to keep the rubbish out of Synthesizer.) So, I suggest the split not be made, and that any History section here be pared back to a few hundred well-sourced words.

Actually, that summarizes the article itself.

There was suggestion made that unsourced "viable" statements be left alone. With that I do not agree at all. The article core is too flimsy to bear much speculation and essayism.

Nonsense abounds. The claim is made that the "synth programmer" occupation didn't exist before the DX-7 (1983), yet the category certainly existed back in the analog days. I know someone who had a good gig setting up Prince's Minimoog for studio work in the late '70s, and there were studio engineers everywhere known for their skill with Moog and ARP. Hugh Syme set up Geddy Lee's synth. Maybe the statement is claiming the occupation first appeared as a taxation category (IRS or whoever), in which case that needs to be made much clearer.

Is there a Methods of musical synthesis article or category? I notice there's no mention made of granular synthesis even though we have Granular synthesis, which makes me suspect that other forms have been ignored. As well, there seems a crying need for a straightforward overview of the different forms, seeing as "What the heck is the difference between additive synthesis and subtractive synthesis?" is EXACTLY the sort of question to which the vaunted "general reader" would be turning to W'pedia, right?

And, seeing as such terribly basic points have been overlooked, ALL jargon deserves to be scrapped immediately, no matter how well-sourced.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle: Thanks for your comments. I agree with all you've said here. I've been cleaning it up for a few weeks, but I've been too busy to do much more work on it. There's still so much to do. (I intend to get back to it eventually.) If you want to get stuck in yourself improving the article, please do go ahead.

One thing - the "programmer" point. That's cited to a RS, and as you know we can only go by what RSs say. I've no doubt the occupation existed in earlier times, so if you have sources for that, please go ahead and correct it. Popcornduff (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff:: I sometimes come across as a pedantic hardass, so first I want to say that I do find this article informative, with eventual GA status certainly not out of the question, and your work has been key to that progress. None of us is perfect — at the newspaper I told my editors that the goal is to eliminate 98% of errors, else we'd never actually finish anything — and I would rate your professionalism at least "higher than most." If I disagree with you, it's not at all intended to question your capability.

Relevant bias: I am a synth dinosaur, devouring literature about modulars on my own starting 1973, eventually getting hands-on time with a Moog 55 in 1979 & Minimoog in 1981, not moving out of the tarpits until 1998 (Roland D-5). I'm almost entirely a guitarist, yet I have that experience, so I admit there's much that to me is "water is wet" commonsense that may be abstruse to "the general user," but nevertheless demands consideration.

On WP, let's say a reader looks up Synthesizer programmer. The result is right to the head of Synthesizer, which is very unhelpful, seeing as it's actually addressed explicitly in Synthesizer#Jobs. An indicative symptom.

The term synth programmer, no matter how well-sourced, WILL remain problematic until properly addressed — it's a one-legged stool, and the sturdiness of that leg approaches non sequitur. If I go to a search engine for Moog programmer, I get all sorts of info about how much I could make being a programmer analyst for Moog Inc. — not at all good for generalized utility of the term.

In the real world, a "synth programmer" is a vintage hardware module that centralizes control of parameters (whether a limited set or all) for ergonomic advantage of the operator. Moog certainly put analog programmers in Keith Emerson's rig. I have a little Behringer BCN44 in the next room, a general-purpose MIDI-code controller (the modern term & more accurate). My ancient D-5 has a contemporaneous PG-10, Roland having issued maybe eight highly specialized units, particularly the PG series, mostly in the '80s; a few are shown at http://www.vintagesynth.com/roland/pgs.php, and the term is specifically used at Roland JX-3P#Features. Even in this laptop age, programmers are ever new, for instance https://www.stereoping.com/synth-programmer/?lang=en

Hardly pressing, though. Happy holidays!
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No need to tiptoe around criticisms of this article - I think it's a very very long way from GA status myself, and most sections require a total rewrite.

The synth programming occupation is way down on my personal list of things to do with this article. If you have the knowledge and the sources, by all means get stuck in and adding whatever's notable. Popcornduff (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Re-recorded song" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Re-recorded song. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Popcornduff (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake

Just plain Bill talk, GarrettTonos: OK, as requested, I did indeed go and check the source... and guess what, I missed a trick. In fact it says "And now synthesizers are everywhere. They are used in almost every genre of music — from country and western to techno." Apologies for my mistake, and thanks for questioning it. Popcornfud (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! --GarrettTonos (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"in every genre" supportable?

See Betteridge's law of headlines (the answer is "no.") Historically informed performance of e.g. baroque pieces would not be the same genre with the addition of a synthesizer. Where in the supposed source does it say "every genre"? Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, see section above. Popcornfud (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Starting this new section hid our edit conflict from these old eyes. Cheers! Just plain Bill (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the Synclavier in the article

The headline says it :-) JanBielawski (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it would be superfluous to add a mention of the Synclavier to the 1980s section when discussing FM synthesis and John Chowning. The Synclavier had a very unique impact in terms of its contributions to popular music. Michael Jackson used it, Frank Zappa, Depeche Mode, and many, many more. That being said, though, there's no way we can possibly just list every synthesizer that was famously used. I think if you can find a source discussing its potentially large influence, then it would be warranted to include in the article as the citation would back up the claim that it was important in the history of synthesizers (I can say I think that statement is true, but I'm also no professional music historian). Spiderinstockings (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The intro of "Beat It" is probably the most famous thing ever played on a Synclavier. The Synclavier was noted for being mega-expensive so that only top performers could afford it.[2] It isn't practical to mention every synth in this article, but the Synclavier represented a shift away from analog synths in the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Shocking omission, I agree.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Synclavier is almost certainly important enough to mention, but as Spidersinstockings says, we will need a good quality source saying that (ie better than the Wordpress source linked above). I can do the research and add it at some point but if anyone would like to make a start by all means go ahead and WP:FIXIT. Popcornfud (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You might find everything you need already in Synclavier. I agree that a mention and wikilink from here would be an important improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)