You are correct that synth music as a genre existed before the DX7, and that synths were used in popular songs even going back into the 70s. But what this article is discussing, and what most people discuss when they talk about the DX7, is how its sales dwarfed that of any synth that came before it. It didn't just become a piece of equipment used by major studios in countless hits across many different genres, it also became an affordable and useful instrument for working musicians across the board.
Right up the top of this thread the first commenter explained it well: "The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars."
What I don't know is if the DX7 itself was particularly recognized as a DX7 by most of the people listening to music that was made with it. My guess is that most casual listeners still just considered it "the thing that the keyboard player is playing". This is why I am not sure that it is as uniquely distinctive as the commenter near the top of this thread suggested.
Of course trained musicians can identify a DX7 in a track, just as they might be able to hear the difference between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster. Dedicated fans might also hear the difference, if they're interested enough to pay attention. But someone just listening to a tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
Personally, I think laypeople do identify the 808 in this way, just judging from anecdotal conversations with people who are not musicians, not DJs, not "serious" music fans, just regular people. This is why I think the 808 is an interesting instrument, and perhaps special in a way that the DX7 wasn't, and the TB-303 and TR-909 weren't. That doesn't mean those other synths aren't special for their own reasons, I was just commenting on something I perceive to be unique about the 808 - a relatively widespread understanding of what its "sound" is.
If you are a hardcore music fan or a musician, it can be illuminating to do some testing with someone who isn't. Play them a song, point out some piece of equipment, explain to them why this song has a 909 hihat but that song has a 707 hihat, and how you can tell the difference. Then play them another song and see if they can identify the hihat. 9 times out of 10 that's not what people are listening for. That's not how they experience music, they don't break it down like that.
I'm not really disputing sales, I'm more disputing the claim that it changed music or made synth music mainstream. Synth music was mainstream before the DX7. And I don't really remember non-musicians talking about the DX7 the way most prog music fans (and also some Clockwork Orange fans) seem to know Moogs. Or Hammonds. 80s pop music fans don't seem to be the kind to do reminisce about synths.
About 909s and 303s, like I said, they were special when they were in their heyday. Most people knew them by name, since there were lots of track titles, there was a TB-303 reference in Ghost in the Shell, and there are some TR-909 and TB-303 tattoos if you search Google... I'm not disputing that 808s are more famous now that hip hop is very mainstream, the 808 kick drum is in vogue for years and Kanye albums have 808s in their title. Like I said, you have to keep those things into context when making a comparison, otherwise only the 808 will ever count as "important"... that's it. Maybe the Moog is a better example?
On the DX7 thing, I expressed myself poorly, I didn't mean it made synth music as a genre mainstream, but I do think the original commenter was correct to say that it changed how synths were used in music simply due to it being so affordable and versatile. Now instead of cover bands having additional members or multi-instrumentalists to play brass or fiddle or whatever, they could just have the keyboard player fill that role too. With the DX7 it became "good enough" for a single synth to cover all of those sounds. It unlocked a door that later on the M1 and many other sample-based synths walked through.
On the 909/303, I don't dispute they were incredibly influential in the rave scene, especially in the 90s. I am one of those people with a 303 tattoo so I know very well what a reputation they had. But also I have some perspective on how small and dynamic that scene turned out to be in the greater scheme of things. Most of the ravers I know from back in the day couldn't pick a 303 in a song and don't even listen to acid or techno music any more.
I think a good comparison to an 808 is a Theremin. Lots of people, even people who don't listen to electronic music or hip-hop know the names of these instruments and can probably pick one out of a song. I'd see the 909 or 303 more like a Strat or a Tele - still very influential and recognizable to people who are interested, but perhaps not so much in the mainstream consciousness.
But this is all opinion just based on anecdotes, so I am open to the idea I might be overestimating the cultural impact of one bit of gear or the other.
> But someone just listening to a tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
At least in the U.S., lay people are notoriously bad at even knowing the names of instruments, much less pinpointing them in the overall musical texture.
About the only test you could do would be to, say, replace the Theremin in Good Vibrations with a string synth from the DX7. Most people have never heard of either instrument, but many would instantly recognize that something is off in that example. Probably the same if you replace a stratacaster, vocoder, etc., in a track they're familiar with, especially if you substitute it with something from a different historical period.
Other than that, I'm afraid all that's being measured is the effect of lack of funding on basic music education in the U.S. :)
Right up the top of this thread the first commenter explained it well: "The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars."
What I don't know is if the DX7 itself was particularly recognized as a DX7 by most of the people listening to music that was made with it. My guess is that most casual listeners still just considered it "the thing that the keyboard player is playing". This is why I am not sure that it is as uniquely distinctive as the commenter near the top of this thread suggested.
Of course trained musicians can identify a DX7 in a track, just as they might be able to hear the difference between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster. Dedicated fans might also hear the difference, if they're interested enough to pay attention. But someone just listening to a tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
Personally, I think laypeople do identify the 808 in this way, just judging from anecdotal conversations with people who are not musicians, not DJs, not "serious" music fans, just regular people. This is why I think the 808 is an interesting instrument, and perhaps special in a way that the DX7 wasn't, and the TB-303 and TR-909 weren't. That doesn't mean those other synths aren't special for their own reasons, I was just commenting on something I perceive to be unique about the 808 - a relatively widespread understanding of what its "sound" is.
If you are a hardcore music fan or a musician, it can be illuminating to do some testing with someone who isn't. Play them a song, point out some piece of equipment, explain to them why this song has a 909 hihat but that song has a 707 hihat, and how you can tell the difference. Then play them another song and see if they can identify the hihat. 9 times out of 10 that's not what people are listening for. That's not how they experience music, they don't break it down like that.