Jeez people need to chill. Okay there might be a few inaccuracies, which I didn’t know until reading the comments, but this was still a very well produced video and I still learnt a lot of things from it and enjoyed watching!
@@muppetpaster yes like the dude/broad said they subtract the higher harmonics whats super intesrsting though is when you do that to the nth degree you end up with a sine wave
Good effort mate. There are quite a few mistakes in here (dx and 106 were not 70s synths, it's 'mowg', thriller was played on a 2600, etc etc) but hey, you had the balls to put something excellent out there and I didn't, so go you!!
At 5:50 you show Anthony Marinelli playing the bass for Thriller. BUT in this video he is showing how he created the synth bass for Thriller using his Arp 2600, which is the one on the record. He then goes on to demonstrate how it can be done with his Moog, but it is not the same and not on Thriller.
You completely missed the Hammond Novachord from the 1930's. Not to mention that the first tonewheel Hammonds used additive sine waves to produce complex tones 9 layers deep. Moog is pronounced: Moe - g.
He missed a lot, and there were some errors: - nothing about the RCA mk2, which was the most advanced system until the late 1960s. - categorizing the Theremin as 'a synthesizer', when it is not. Still worth a mention, though. A viable definition could have focused the topic better, imho. "Generates tones" doesn't say much for clarifying what synths are, or what they can do differently from anything else. - no mention of Don Buchla or Serge Tcherepnin. The USA has at least **two** coasts as far as synths are concerned :) - EMS, Korg and Oberheim do not exist in this timeline, and Roland was only ever good at making a DCO poly or two. - people like Raymond Scott and Harold Bode , who were huge influences on Bob Moog. - the Fairlight and samplers don't belong in a 20 minute histiory of synthesizers. A Synclavier WOULD have belonged here and served well as a worthy bridge - being an FM synth first, but whoopsy. - No mention of RMI -> PPG -> ProphetVS -> Korg -> Waldorf etc ....I guess that wavetable hardware synths never existed in this timeline, either. This isn't "THE" history, and it's hardly "A" comprehensive history. The topic is too vast to squeeze into under 20 minutes without ignoring or minimizing some key players. It's a young guy's perspective of how some of his favorite music was made on certain instruments. I'm sure he'll look back and cringe if he hasn't already. And it's okay, nobody's going to arrest him for it , it's all good lol.
Given the title, one might expect it to be comprehensive, but given the video length, it's wasn't likely. One amazing source is "120 Years of Electronic Music : The history of electronic musical instruments from 1800 to 2019", though there are more than a few exceptions to their title (1748: Denis D’Or). It would be interesting to hear a lot of these, just to get an better auditory understanding of how uncommon musical instruments have progressed since that time.
Well done, Ben. Nicely put together but not always entirely accurate. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable video. I hope you get a good grade for it (was it an EPQ project?).
Where is Ondes Martinot, ondioline?, Trautonium per se is NOT a syntheziser: It is closer to a Hammond organ so it produces a sinewave using a synchronous motor and some gears for harmonics.. but no additive synthesis. I also expected to see the Voder and Vocoder which are real synthesizers extracting harmonics contents using a nth grade comb filter, and the Mellotron which is the earliest sampler... seems this video needs significant grooming and lots of research to show the real timeline.
"MOWAHGG" not "MOOOOOG" - FFS!!! This is why you only have 253 subs! Otherwise, a nice little video. But you had to be there at the time to really appreciate the advances in technology from the Theremin through to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD using a DX-7 and the awesome Jupiter 8. I loved those times, I've played rock/metal guitar since 1988 BUT I still have a master MIDI keyboard, Cubase and the plethora of VST synths that I have collected over the years, literally only to make the noises I hold dear to my heart on hearing the likes of Jarre, Vangeliis and Tangerine Dream as a kid.
In terms of Synth History, there will always be a bigger synth geek who disagrees with your facts. In terms of a college project, A+. I'm half a synth geek and really enjoyed watching your video. Thank you 🙂
Nice coverage, but I wouldn't call it "The" history of synthesizers. For one thing, ARP synths are scarcely discussed at all, and they were key in the development of music that used synthesizers. Tony Banks of Genesis used a Pro Soloist to great effect on Selling England by the Pound and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Joe Zawinul of Weather Report did amazing work with two 2600s. George Duke had an Odyssey working with Frank Zappa.
Good effort. One note. Moog is pronounced wrongly in this video. It rhymes with vogue and rogue. I learned this from his family. They are trying to get this right in the world. This is because the name is from Dutch & German origin. After all, it's simply how they are called.
The first synth that would be recognizable as a modern synth would be the sackbut, invented in Ottawa Ontario. Moog came a decade later. Hugh Le Caine was a researcher for the NRC, was not at all interested in marketing, so the sackbut sits in the NRC museum, shame really.
There are big holes in your history timeline, like the Ondes Martenot is not noticed and no word about Philips nat lab . There's just so much more to it, to much to say in 13.26 minutes. Good luck with your college project.
I remember trying to explain Synthesizers to my Father. He wasn't that crazy about adding various sounds to enhance our Bands sound. I told we can get any sound from Violins to sirens. The second I said sirens he flat out said no. It wasn't until I bought a Yamaha CS-80 as shown @ 6:36 did he realize what a benefit it was to Gospel Quartet music. Later he purchased a Roland JUNO 106 and our sound really advanced. We recorded three Albums with it.
Excellent work! As a synthesizer fan, it’s always nice to learn something new, and I didn’t know about anything before 1950 or so. That said, if you ever revisit this, there are two things that I thought were critical, that needed more mention. The first was, I believe that the jump from monophonic to polyphonic synthesis was a major game changer, and it wasn’t really fully mentioned. The ability to play a chord on a synthesizer was a huge shift. Second, I think you missed the boat on sampling. What you really needed to do was take that same sample of your voice, and then play a little arpeggio and a chord with your voice to more fully demonstrate the concept.
Come on guys, dont sweat it. Ive seen an interview with him where he actually explians it was pronounced "moogh" because it is a dutch name.all the brits say moog but he americans say mowg. Here in australia, mowg. So...
Well done Ben and thanks. As others have said, there may have been one or two inaccuracies but it's a great overview and one I'll show my kids. I've been into synths since the 80s and now mostly muck around with Softube Modular and various plugin emulations, like the Model 40 and Model 80. Take care and good luck with your studies. Cheers from Sydney - Dave
I had no idea that these instruments had roots going that far back. We have come very far in synth technology too. I remember seeing on MTV videos where keyboardists would have a rack of 2 synths here and maybe another rack of 3 there. When I saw Genesis in 1992 Tony Banks used 4 synths on stage and they were big ones - Emulator II+, Yamaha DX-9, two other types. By the time I saw A Flock of Seagulls at a casino during the 2010's, Mike Score played ALL the notes, incl. the Arabianesque melody - everything on a small Roland synth unit. Just that and that alone. After the show, he dismounted the thing off its foldable rack, put all that gear in a zip bag and it was ready to go. Radically different than what you would've seen in 1983. BTW, 'Moog' is pronounced 'Mogue' (rhymes with 'vogue'). I saw the movie 'MOOG' online and Robert Moog said so himself. Stevie Wonder and others mispronounced it. Great job, Ben. Hope you got a good grade for this project. 👏
Please het your info straight.....Leyden jar...Not LeydAn jar.....BIG difference... Also...."Good Vibrations" does not technically feature a theremin, but rather an Electro-Theremin. Also big difference... It was dubbed a "theremin" simply for convenience.
Lots of factual errors, and english errors. 1897 is more than a century later than 1759, not a decade later, Robert Moog didn't make the most widely used synthesizer in 1964. There were probably just a couple of modules made in 1964. Before 1968 (switched on Bach, Wendy Carlos) probably fewer than 50. After 1968 maybe 100's by 1970. Robert Moog did sell lots of Theremin kits, and factory built Theremins from 1964 onward.
Hello There Again, my name is Mr Cannadine T. Boxill-Harris, I was wondering if you and your band would still like to do the other way Round Extended Word Lyrics But in you’re own Words Pretty Please? and sing it differently in the exact different versions for all of us Fans and just Reuse and Remix the Original Extended Background songs For this particular song from the Korgis, Everybody's Got To Learn Sometime, why don’t you and you’re band Replace the Synthesizer Strings Sound for those Two Musette 🪗 sounds and make those Two Musette Accordion’s 4 to 7 and a half times more Deeper then the Original Synthesizer Strings Sound that they have used for this Purticular Extended Type of Original Background Song Called Everybody's got to Learn Sometime by The Korgis Pretty Please? and also Replace the Xylophone Sound to a 21 Times More Deeper Chime Bell And Even an 24 Times More Deeper Still Drum Sound, Because it is Still one of my Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Favourite original Extended Type of Background Song Ever Since I was about 10 Years of Age Thank You Very Very Very Very Much X X X X X
Just kinda blew by the entire virtual analog innovations of the 1990's there. The Nord Lead, JP-8000, and CS1x are on line 1. And the original CPU-based modeling like ReBirth338.
what a stupid defintion of additif and substractif synthesis .... with additif yes you start from nothing adding harmonics and with substactif it is the is the inverse ... you start from something like rich in harmonic like a square waveform or something but not a SINE waveform becaus a sinewaveform is not a complex waveform to sibstract harmonies
Good video. Of course it is still a small slice of synthesizer history. I have more than 10 hardware synths including an OB--X8 that I bought because I respected the people that built it. These days I use PluginGuru Unifiy to manage the huge number of VST synths in my computer. I recall memories of playing on a Buchla synth many years back at UCSD with Ampex tape recorders. Yes, I have a real Roland VP-330. I like string machines.. My only other old Roland is a JP-8000 and RS-505
I apologize for being frank, but this video is the most irresponsible example I've ever witnessed with respect to anything. This guy goes on and on talking about concepts with which he is clueless. This was obviously a high-school or community College effort. I was simply dumbfounded at how anyone could actually claim this joke as his own work; ((
And we have of course the new trend of VST inspired synthesizers like the Waldorf Iridium, the flagship synth with this amazing GUI, easy to understand modulation matrix and limited menu diving. A lot of work went in your short documentary.
Does anyone perhaps know a synth into which I can directly enter mathematical formulas? Reaktor offers something like that but the interface is very uncomfortable. Does anyone know an alternative?
(This has already been addressed, but still...!) How can someone doing a video on the history of synthesizers not know that Moog is pronounced "MOGUE" as in vogue, not "moog" as in "dude!"
Hey guys what about Keith Emerson, who worked together with Robert Moog it really pisses me off why not even given Keith Emerson some quick add time on this program he was one of the best keyboard players in the world and you’re mentioning these simple bands that couldn’t even come close to what Keith Emerson did so come on guys. The history is great I love it no mention of Rick Wakeman you talking about these 80s corporate rock How about some progressive music, Rick Wakeman, John, Lord Peter banks it seems like the young generation forgets all the pioneers and that’s what pisses me off. Thank you for your time
This is quite ballsy to call it "the history of synthesizers" when you put so many errors in this short clip plus leave out so many key instruments (pun intended) and key developments. If this is a school project, just put it in the title, and then there's no shame about it at all yet claiming to give THE history of synthesizers is just putting out more "alternative facts" no one needs.
I do appreciate the effort but it may have been a good idea to allow someone else review your work. After half way through I must have seen 9 mistakes already whether referencing the wrong synth, getting the dates far off wrong or applying the wrong synth to the wrong song. You have over 300K subscribers so I am sure you are doing something right.
Hmmm, somewhat accurate, but lots of mistakes. Thriller is not made up of digital sounds. It's a mix of analog, digital, horns and guitars. Are Friends Electric? is analog synths and acoustic drums. Thriller was not played on a Moog, but an ARP 2600. The video you quote even goes into great length about that. I'd redo this video, especially if it's for college.
While the Yamaha DX7 does use sinewaves to create some pretty complex sounds, it's a Digital FM Synthesizer that was originally released in 1987, the Synthesizers of the 70's were mostly analog monophonic instruments (there was at least one Digital Synthesizer released in the 70's called the Fairlight CMI), they usually had one or more analog VCOs or Voltage Controlled Oscillators that generated a basic Sawtooth waveform and then used waveshaper circuits to generate Triangle, Sine, and Square waveforms.
Some internet information about synfesisers (or synfs), but a few errors which others have pointed out) as well as the narrator being unable to pronounce synf - sorry, synth, synfesis or synfesiser.
Anthony Marinelli played the original Thriller bass line on this 2600 and not on his Model D. He is showing in the clip that you can get similar results with the Model D though.
I've been fighting for many years about this. I saw a documentary that asked the man himself how Moog should be pronounced, but he admitted that it had been Anglicised to from "mogue" to moog.
The same thing happened to Nike from the US. If in the UK, you pronounce it "Naykee", you're in the minority. Most brits call it "Nayk" I've come to accept there are different ways of pronouncing things and not worth worrying about it. Different strokes...
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I wish technology could have been frozen in the late 70's. The innovation from the late 70's and into the 80's far outpaced the artist's creativity to use such technology. New technology would come out before the artists could even scratch the surface on the usage of the existing technology. I offer as evidence the fact that many popular songs contained factory preset patches. I talked to the guy at Emu that created the "swashbuckler" sound used in Robert Palmer's "Simply Irresistible". This sound/patch was supposed to be an EXAMPLE of what the machine was capable of, a demonstration. Instead, a song was created around it. There were a few exceptions like Howard Jones and Kate Bush, but most artists took the instrument out of the box, plugged it in, and went straight into the studio. They didn't take the time to develop custom sounds, organically from the ground up. When the Samplers took off they would digitize other songs and inject them into their music. Augh!! The intent of the engineers was that an artist could digitize an organic sound, like a stream of water, or wildlife, process it, and incorporate it into music. Kind of like the way painters would take colors from nature and use them in paintings. Sorry for the rant, but it is frustrating to see such technology not being realized to its full potential.
Note: The Theremin is not actually a synthesizer, it is an electronic musical instrument you play without even touching it, the reason why I say that the Theremin is not a synthesizer is because it doesn't "Synthesize" sound, the word Synthesizer comes from the word Synthesis which means "The combining of parts into a connected whole" which succinctly describes what a true Synthesizer does, it combines parts of a sound into a connected whole sound, a Theremin consists of three radio-frequency oscillators one is set to a fixed frequency and is called a reference oscillator, the other two Radio-frequency oscillators are variable in frequency and are connected to an antenna, one of the variable oscillators is mixed with the signal from the reference oscillator, the difference in frequency between the two produces a Sinewave at an audio frequency, the pitch of the audio frequency can be controlled by simply moving your hand closer to or further away from the antenna the oscillator is connected to, so a Theremin produces a musical sound in a completely different way to how a true Synthesizer does.
Both use oscillators, the theremin is a unique controller for electronic music. Filters in subtractive synthesis remove harmonics by letting the low partials to pass (low pass filter) or the high partials to pass in the high pass filter.
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
1:45 "a whole decade forward"
I presume you meant "a whole century"? Because 140 years certainly seems like more than a decade to me.
I dunno man, the decade since I've had kids feels like at least 140 years...
@@StephenBrown85 Yes, same for me brother!
Jeez people need to chill. Okay there might be a few inaccuracies, which I didn’t know until reading the comments, but this was still a very well produced video and I still learnt a lot of things from it and enjoyed watching!
Filters don’t lower the pitch of the sound, they remove the upper harmonics or partials from the sound. The pitch remains the same.
lmao
Was going to mention this
Subtraction.....that is what filters do.
@@muppetpaster yes like the dude/broad said they subtract the higher harmonics whats super intesrsting though is when you do that to the nth degree you end up with a sine wave
Yeah but if you think DEEPLY about it, you actually end up with lower-pitch-audable-information
Good effort mate. There are quite a few mistakes in here (dx and 106 were not 70s synths, it's 'mowg', thriller was played on a 2600, etc etc) but hey, you had the balls to put something excellent out there and I didn't, so go you!!
'Mowg'? Umm... 'Mohg', I think, from all the utterances I've heard.
Like „Door”?
Like moge
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xxBob Moog himself pronounced it Mowg with a hard O. I don't think you can get any more authoritative than that.
@@davidpetersonharvey Moog pronouned the same as 'mow' as in mow the lawn.
The instrument at 2:55 is not a Theremin. Good Vibrations uses a Tannerin, which creates a similar sound to a Theremin but uses a different technique.
At 5:50 you show Anthony Marinelli playing the bass for Thriller. BUT in this video he is showing how he created the synth bass for Thriller using his Arp 2600, which is the one on the record. He then goes on to demonstrate how it can be done with his Moog, but it is not the same and not on Thriller.
Great point..correct it was a 2600
MOOG sounds like Rogue. Saw Bob Moog explain how to pronounce his name.
Right, long O like rogue, vogue.
You completely missed the Hammond Novachord from the 1930's. Not to mention that the first tonewheel Hammonds used additive sine waves to produce complex tones 9 layers deep. Moog is pronounced: Moe - g.
He missed a lot, and there were some errors:
- nothing about the RCA mk2, which was the most advanced system until the late 1960s.
- categorizing the Theremin as 'a synthesizer', when it is not. Still worth a mention, though. A viable definition could have focused the topic better, imho. "Generates tones" doesn't say much for clarifying what synths are, or what they can do differently from anything else.
- no mention of Don Buchla or Serge Tcherepnin. The USA has at least **two** coasts as far as synths are concerned :)
- EMS, Korg and Oberheim do not exist in this timeline, and Roland was only ever good at making a DCO poly or two.
- people like Raymond Scott and Harold Bode , who were huge influences on Bob Moog.
- the Fairlight and samplers don't belong in a 20 minute histiory of synthesizers. A Synclavier WOULD have belonged here and served well as a worthy bridge - being an FM synth first, but whoopsy.
- No mention of RMI -> PPG -> ProphetVS -> Korg -> Waldorf etc ....I guess that wavetable hardware synths never existed in this timeline, either.
This isn't "THE" history, and it's hardly "A" comprehensive history. The topic is too vast to squeeze into under 20 minutes without ignoring or minimizing some key players.
It's a young guy's perspective of how some of his favorite music was made on certain instruments. I'm sure he'll look back and cringe if he hasn't already.
And it's okay, nobody's going to arrest him for it , it's all good lol.
@@shaft9000 I think this is more like college presentation rather than documentary. I will give him slack
Given the title, one might expect it to be comprehensive, but given the video length, it's wasn't likely.
One amazing source is "120 Years of Electronic Music : The history of electronic musical instruments from 1800 to 2019", though there are more than a few exceptions to their title (1748: Denis D’Or). It would be interesting to hear a lot of these, just to get an better auditory understanding of how uncommon musical instruments have progressed since that time.
Nothing about Acess virus and Clavia Nords.
The instrument used in Good Vibrations was NOT a Theremin; it was a similar-sounding instrument called the Electro-Theremin.
...also known as "Tannerin". 🙂
Sympfs? Once you hear it, you can't unhear it!
Fuck, less than 3 minutes in and it's full of so many mistakes. Giving up.
No doubt
Nice overview! But please learn how to pronounce Moog.
Well done, Ben. Nicely put together but not always entirely accurate. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable video. I hope you get a good grade for it (was it an EPQ project?).
Where is Ondes Martinot, ondioline?, Trautonium per se is NOT a syntheziser: It is closer to a Hammond organ so it produces a sinewave using a synchronous motor and some gears for harmonics.. but no additive synthesis. I also expected to see the Voder and Vocoder which are real synthesizers extracting harmonics contents using a nth grade comb filter, and the Mellotron which is the earliest sampler... seems this video needs significant grooming and lots of research to show the real timeline.
*Martenot 😘
Very nice, despite the mispronunciation of Moog.
Excellent work!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The name Moog, rhymes with the word "Vogue", NOT the sound a cow makes.!!!
Ppl in here expecting feature length documentary going in depth about every corner of synth history in a 13min video 🤡
Nice work Ben, apart from some mistakes. And...I keep hearing 'Sympt'... ;-)
Good job man. Some slight inaccuracies but hey that comes with the territory. Synths are an incredibly complex instrument/object/topic/history.
"MOWAHGG" not "MOOOOOG" - FFS!!! This is why you only have 253 subs! Otherwise, a nice little video. But you had to be there at the time to really appreciate the advances in technology from the Theremin through to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD using a DX-7 and the awesome Jupiter 8. I loved those times, I've played rock/metal guitar since 1988 BUT I still have a master MIDI keyboard, Cubase and the plethora of VST synths that I have collected over the years, literally only to make the noises I hold dear to my heart on hearing the likes of Jarre, Vangeliis and Tangerine Dream as a kid.
In terms of Synth History, there will always be a bigger synth geek who disagrees with your facts. In terms of a college project, A+. I'm half a synth geek and really enjoyed watching your video. Thank you 🙂
No mention of the Ondes Martenot? Or the Clavioline?
Good video but needs to be longer and much more complete
Always nice to see love for the ondes Martenot ❤
The CMI WAS TO EXPENSIVE for most musicians at 30 5housand dollars! And it wasn't that good as it sounded tinny!
Nice coverage, but I wouldn't call it "The" history of synthesizers. For one thing, ARP synths are scarcely discussed at all, and they were key in the development of music that used synthesizers. Tony Banks of Genesis used a Pro Soloist to great effect on Selling England by the Pound and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Joe Zawinul of Weather Report did amazing work with two 2600s. George Duke had an Odyssey working with Frank Zappa.
And Billy Currie of Ultravox made his signature lead sound with an Odyssey - flanger - guitar amp combo.
“I dream of wires” is a much more complete history of synthesizers…. This could be a brief discussion on the matter…
Where is Doctor leCaine in 1948. Canada. The first prototype synth with voltage control? The Electronic Sakbut?
Yes, Hugh LeCaine contributed far more than is generally recognized, and is still criminally uncredited, as he was during his lifetime.
No doubt, that was the first synth created apparently. How he missed it I have no idea...
Good effort.
One note. Moog is pronounced wrongly in this video.
It rhymes with vogue and rogue.
I learned this from his family. They are trying to get this right in the world. This is because the name is from Dutch & German origin. After all, it's simply how they are called.
The first synth that would be recognizable as a modern synth would be the sackbut, invented in Ottawa Ontario. Moog came a decade later. Hugh Le Caine was a researcher for the NRC, was not at all interested in marketing, so the sackbut sits in the NRC museum, shame really.
There are big holes in your history timeline, like the Ondes Martenot is not noticed and no word about Philips nat lab . There's just so much more to it, to much to say in 13.26 minutes.
Good luck with your college project.
Pronouncing Moog’s name correctly would have helped in your credibility.
Some interesting stuff in this vid, but in 2023 pronouncing the name wrong is disrespectful to Dr Moog! (Moog rhymes with vogue)!
Very interesting history on synfs and synfesizers (is that how you pronounce them?)
Nice try but I think you are running before you can walk with this video. Full of inaccuracies. A bit all over the place.
I remember trying to explain Synthesizers to my Father. He wasn't that crazy about adding various sounds to enhance our Bands sound. I told we can get any sound from Violins to sirens. The second I said sirens he flat out said no. It wasn't until I bought a Yamaha CS-80 as shown @ 6:36 did he realize what a benefit it was to Gospel Quartet music. Later he purchased a Roland JUNO 106 and our sound really advanced. We recorded three Albums with it.
Very cool but Moog is not pronounced Mooooog but Moge .. not moooo but mo ... and yes you're not the only one, i mispronounced once upon a time ..
Excellent work! As a synthesizer fan, it’s always nice to learn something new, and I didn’t know about anything before 1950 or so. That said, if you ever revisit this, there are two things that I thought were critical, that needed more mention. The first was, I believe that the jump from monophonic to polyphonic synthesis was a major game changer, and it wasn’t really fully mentioned. The ability to play a chord on a synthesizer was a huge shift. Second, I think you missed the boat on sampling. What you really needed to do was take that same sample of your voice, and then play a little arpeggio and a chord with your voice to more fully demonstrate the concept.
Good start, but don't show your ignorance, it's pronounced "mowg", not "moog".
Don't be vogue, ask for Moog.
The real hint was their synth called the Rouge. Moog Rouge makes no sense unless they rhyme.
Come on guys, dont sweat it. Ive seen an interview with him where he actually explians it was pronounced "moogh" because it is a dutch name.all the brits say moog but he americans say mowg. Here in australia, mowg. So...
Ps. Good job ben. Nicely rounded doco. Tough subject. 👍
@@emdotambient "Rogue", not "Rouge".
Rouge is makeup.
@@SpikesStudio3 I met the man on a number of occasions. That's how he pronounced it.
Leaping a decade forward from 1759 doesn't land you in 1897.
Fascinating stuff. First bins, now synths. What’s next?
Also nice theremins
Moog rhymes with 'vogue'.
Good job Ben. It’s clear you are inspired! Keep making music and films. ;)
But get your facts straight.
@@muppetpaster he’s a student, cut him some slack. Raise people up, don’t tear them down.
Well done Ben and thanks. As others have said, there may have been one or two inaccuracies but it's a great overview and one I'll show my kids. I've been into synths since the 80s and now mostly muck around with Softube Modular and various plugin emulations, like the Model 40 and Model 80. Take care and good luck with your studies. Cheers from Sydney - Dave
Man this video was amazing
There is only one hope for humanity - the synthesizer.
I had no idea that these instruments had roots going that far back. We have come very far in synth technology too. I remember seeing on MTV videos where keyboardists would have a rack of 2 synths here and maybe another rack of 3 there. When I saw Genesis in 1992 Tony Banks used 4 synths on stage and they were big ones - Emulator II+, Yamaha DX-9, two other types. By the time I saw A Flock of Seagulls at a casino during the 2010's, Mike Score played ALL the notes, incl. the Arabianesque melody - everything on a small Roland synth unit. Just that and that alone. After the show, he dismounted the thing off its foldable rack, put all that gear in a zip bag and it was ready to go. Radically different than what you would've seen in 1983. BTW, 'Moog' is pronounced 'Mogue' (rhymes with 'vogue'). I saw the movie 'MOOG' online and Robert Moog said so himself. Stevie Wonder and others mispronounced it. Great job, Ben. Hope you got a good grade for this project. 👏
Great stuff. Well put together
Please het your info straight.....Leyden jar...Not LeydAn jar.....BIG difference...
Also...."Good Vibrations" does not technically feature a theremin, but rather an Electro-Theremin. Also big difference... It was dubbed a "theremin" simply for convenience.
Lots of factual errors, and english errors. 1897 is more than a century later than 1759, not a decade later, Robert Moog didn't make the most widely used synthesizer in 1964. There were probably just a couple of modules made in 1964. Before 1968 (switched on Bach, Wendy Carlos) probably fewer than 50. After 1968 maybe 100's by 1970. Robert Moog did sell lots of Theremin kits, and factory built Theremins from 1964 onward.
Hello There Again, my name is Mr Cannadine T. Boxill-Harris, I was wondering if you and your band would still like to do the other way Round Extended Word Lyrics But in you’re own Words Pretty Please? and sing it differently in the exact different versions for all of us Fans and just Reuse and Remix the Original Extended Background songs For this particular song from the Korgis, Everybody's Got To Learn Sometime, why don’t you and you’re band Replace the Synthesizer Strings Sound for those Two Musette 🪗 sounds and make those Two Musette Accordion’s 4 to 7 and a half times more Deeper then the Original Synthesizer Strings Sound that they have used for this Purticular Extended Type of Original Background Song Called Everybody's got to Learn Sometime by The Korgis Pretty Please? and also Replace the Xylophone Sound to a 21 Times More Deeper Chime Bell And Even an 24 Times More Deeper Still Drum Sound, Because it is Still one of my Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Favourite original Extended Type of Background Song Ever Since I was about 10 Years of Age Thank You Very Very Very Very Much X X X X X
Uh. . . what?
Just kinda blew by the entire virtual analog innovations of the 1990's there. The Nord Lead, JP-8000, and CS1x are on line 1. And the original CPU-based modeling like ReBirth338.
what a stupid defintion of additif and substractif synthesis .... with additif yes you start from nothing adding harmonics and with substactif it is the is the inverse ... you start from something like rich in harmonic like a square waveform or something but not a SINE waveform becaus a sinewaveform is not a complex waveform to sibstract harmonies
MOH-OOGH
Good video. Of course it is still a small slice of synthesizer history. I have more than 10 hardware synths including an OB--X8 that I bought because I respected the people that built it. These days I use PluginGuru Unifiy to manage the huge number of VST synths in my computer.
I recall memories of playing on a Buchla synth many years back at UCSD with Ampex tape recorders.
Yes, I have a real Roland VP-330. I like string machines.. My only other old Roland is a JP-8000 and RS-505
Yeah, love my JP8080. Still, that's digital v analog like my Juno 60 and there's a difference.
A lot of people recognize the Electronic Sackbut as the first synthesizer created in 1945-48.
I apologize for being frank, but this video is the most irresponsible example I've ever witnessed with respect to anything. This guy goes on and on talking about concepts with which he is clueless. This was obviously a high-school or community College effort. I was simply dumbfounded at how anyone could actually claim this joke as his own work; ((
And we have of course the new trend of VST inspired synthesizers like the Waldorf Iridium, the flagship synth with this amazing GUI, easy to understand modulation matrix and limited menu diving. A lot of work went in your short documentary.
Does anyone perhaps know a synth into which I can directly enter mathematical formulas? Reaktor offers something like that but the interface is very uncomfortable. Does anyone know an alternative?
(This has already been addressed, but still...!) How can someone doing a video on the history of synthesizers not know that Moog is pronounced "MOGUE" as in vogue, not "moog" as in "dude!"
Hey guys what about Keith Emerson, who worked together with Robert Moog it really pisses me off why not even given Keith Emerson some quick add time on this program he was one of the best keyboard players in the world and you’re mentioning these simple bands that couldn’t even come close to what Keith Emerson did so come on guys. The history is great I love it no mention of Rick Wakeman you talking about these 80s corporate rock How about some progressive music, Rick Wakeman, John, Lord Peter banks it seems like the young generation forgets all the pioneers and that’s what pisses me off. Thank you for your time
No mention of the Jenny Ondioline or Jean-Jaques Perry / Gershon Kingsley (Gershon wrote Popcorn, a hit by Hot Butter, and later by the Crazy Frog).
If you cannot pronounce Moog correctly then don’t bother making a video on this topic.
The pronouciation of Moog changes region to region and accent to accent, don't be elitest, don't be a dick.
1759?? The first ROMpler?? Damn they probably thought it was a dragon or something back then.
This is quite ballsy to call it "the history of synthesizers" when you put so many errors in this short clip plus leave out so many key instruments (pun intended) and key developments. If this is a school project, just put it in the title, and then there's no shame about it at all yet claiming to give THE history of synthesizers is just putting out more "alternative facts" no one needs.
@2:18, that's a poor description of additive synthesis imho@3:28, explain this is subtractive synthesis... and it is Moog like in 'Vogue'.
How in the world can you talk about synths and completely skip progressive rock and metal and the VC-S3?
I do appreciate the effort but it may have been a good idea to allow someone else review your work. After half way through I must have seen 9 mistakes already whether referencing the wrong synth, getting the dates far off wrong or applying the wrong synth to the wrong song. You have over 300K subscribers so I am sure you are doing something right.
@4:10 Anyone and everyone knows MOOG rhymes with vogue. It's not an "oo" sound like in "boot" or "suit".
Hmmm, somewhat accurate, but lots of mistakes. Thriller is not made up of digital sounds. It's a mix of analog, digital, horns and guitars. Are Friends Electric? is analog synths and acoustic drums. Thriller was not played on a Moog, but an ARP 2600. The video you quote even goes into great length about that. I'd redo this video, especially if it's for college.
While the Yamaha DX7 does use sinewaves to create some pretty complex sounds, it's a Digital FM Synthesizer that was originally released in 1987, the Synthesizers of the 70's were mostly analog monophonic instruments (there was at least one Digital Synthesizer released in the 70's called the Fairlight CMI), they usually had one or more analog VCOs or Voltage Controlled Oscillators that generated a basic Sawtooth waveform and then used waveshaper circuits to generate Triangle, Sine, and Square waveforms.
1983
Released in '83...produced till '89 (DX7) and Fairlight CMI 1979-1989
Yes the DX7 in 1983, the DX7llD and FD in 1986
Some internet information about synfesisers (or synfs), but a few errors which others have pointed out) as well as the narrator being unable to pronounce synf - sorry, synth, synfesis or synfesiser.
You failed to mention that all VST and Daws are garbage and if you are playing any instrument other than a Moog Model D you aren’t a real music.
Filtering does nothing to pitch....It filters frequencies mostly....Not pitch.
I see you have a Behringer Pro 1 in the background. That's the spirit. 😆
Anthony Marinelli played the original Thriller bass line on this 2600 and not on his Model D. He is showing in the clip that you can get similar results with the Model D though.
decade = 10 years, and the statement in the video before this error was unnecessary. "The technology 300 years ago was not as good as today..."
So much wrong in this vid. It's like he spent maybe 10 minutes on research, 2 mins on script then just winged the rest
Theremin is NOT used in good vibrations. It was the Tannerin by Paul Tanner.
sadly the good use of analong synths dies in the late 80's cause aftewards all we got were producers making boring music with the use of software
1759 to 1897 is not a decade(10 years), it’s nearly 1.5 century(100 years)
The random tones playing the background through the talking is really very annoying.
Moog is pronounce with a "long" O, as in boat, float, wrote, etc.
I've been fighting for many years about this. I saw a documentary that asked the man himself how Moog should be pronounced, but he admitted that it had been Anglicised to from "mogue" to moog.
The same thing happened to Nike from the US. If in the UK, you pronounce it "Naykee", you're in the minority. Most brits call it "Nayk"
I've come to accept there are different ways of pronouncing things and not worth worrying about it. Different strokes...
No mention of ARP??
just after the four decade point in the video, you begin mispronouncing “Moog”
Did I hear correctly: 1897 is a whole decade forward from 1759?
Thank you. This is a great video
Theremin used by the Beach Boys in Good Vibrations? No, it was not.
Leyden jar, not Leydan jar. Leyden is a city in The Netherlands, where this invention was made.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I wish technology could have been frozen in the late 70's. The innovation from the late 70's and into the 80's far outpaced the artist's creativity to use such technology. New technology would come out before the artists could even scratch the surface on the usage of the existing technology. I offer as evidence the fact that many popular songs contained factory preset patches. I talked to the guy at Emu that created the "swashbuckler" sound used in Robert Palmer's "Simply Irresistible". This sound/patch was supposed to be an EXAMPLE of what the machine was capable of, a demonstration. Instead, a song was created around it. There were a few exceptions like Howard Jones and Kate Bush, but most artists took the instrument out of the box, plugged it in, and went straight into the studio. They didn't take the time to develop custom sounds, organically from the ground up. When the Samplers took off they would digitize other songs and inject them into their music. Augh!! The intent of the engineers was that an artist could digitize an organic sound, like a stream of water, or wildlife, process it, and incorporate it into music. Kind of like the way painters would take colors from nature and use them in paintings. Sorry for the rant, but it is frustrating to see such technology not being realized to its full potential.
The first notes of "Beat it" are dirctly stolen from the demo of the Fairlight.
no mentions to TB303, TR### family, incomplete for me.
You are killing me. MOGUE MOW•G come on
45 years of prophet 5 synthesizer and yamaha dx7 40th anniversary
Full of errors and gaps. There are better videos on YT if you’re interested.
"we would need to leap a whole decade forward" and moves 140 years in time.
a doct without Keith Emerson and Rick wakeman?....
Isn't Moog pronounced Mow(as in cut the grass)-g ?
I shook theremins hand at mills college in Oakland,it was soncool
Note: The Theremin is not actually a synthesizer, it is an electronic musical instrument you play without even touching it, the reason why I say that the Theremin is not a synthesizer is because it doesn't "Synthesize" sound, the word Synthesizer comes from the word Synthesis which means "The combining of parts into a connected whole" which succinctly describes what a true Synthesizer does, it combines parts of a sound into a connected whole sound, a Theremin consists of three radio-frequency oscillators one is set to a fixed frequency and is called a reference oscillator, the other two Radio-frequency oscillators are variable in frequency and are connected to an antenna, one of the variable oscillators is mixed with the signal from the reference oscillator, the difference in frequency between the two produces a Sinewave at an audio frequency, the pitch of the audio frequency can be controlled by simply moving your hand closer to or further away from the antenna the oscillator is connected to, so a Theremin produces a musical sound in a completely different way to how a true Synthesizer does.
Both use oscillators, the theremin is a unique controller for electronic music. Filters in subtractive synthesis remove harmonics by letting the low partials to pass (low pass filter) or the high partials to pass in the high pass filter.
I came here for synths but this guy keeps going on about simps
I think you mean sympfs.
Thank you. I found that very interesting.
How can we take this guy seriously as a historian of synthesizers when he can’t even pronounce ‘moog’ correctly?
super original comment, I'm sure that you and the other 50 comments saying that are really fun at parties.
Oi jonnoi telephone operator ghosh bagane jomi kinechilo