9 Min Read

Play someone a synthwave track and ask them what decade it's from, and almost everyone says the same thing: the 80s. Play them an actual Billboard Hot 100 chart from any given week of 1985 and the picture is a lot messier — guitar solos, gated drums next to saxophone next to full orchestral strings, production quality ranging from pristine to genuinely rough. Synthwave doesn't sound like the 1980s. It sounds like a very specific, very narrow slice of the 1980s — mostly film and TV scoring, mostly European electronic acts, mostly gear that most working musicians of the era couldn't actually afford — reassembled thirty years later by people who were, in most cases, children or not yet born when the source material was made.

That's not a criticism of the genre. It's the mechanism the genre runs on. Understanding the gap between the myth and the actual decade explains why synthwave sounds the way it does, why certain production choices keep recurring across completely unrelated artists, and why "authenticity" in this genre means something different than it does almost anywhere else in music.

Trace the genre's reference points and a short list keeps coming up: John Carpenter's self-scored horror soundtracks, Vangelis's Blade Runner, Tangerine Dream's film work throughout the late 70s and 80s, Giorgio Moroder's Eurodisco productions for Donna Summer and later his own Scarface score. It's a real, coherent body of work — but it's a tiny fraction of what actually got made and released in that decade, and it wasn't even a unified scene at the time. Carpenter was scoring his own low-budget films on synthesizers largely because he couldn't afford an orchestra, not because he was chasing a specific aesthetic movement. Vangelis was a classically trained composer working almost entirely alone in his own studio, an outlier even among electronic musicians of the period. Tangerine Dream came out of the German Krautrock scene, a completely different lineage from American film scoring.

These artists didn't know they were building a shared genre. Synthwave, as a coherent, self-aware style with its own name and conventions, didn't exist yet — it was assembled retroactively, starting roughly in the mid-2000s, by producers listening back across decades and pulling out the threads that felt most sonically distinct: the cold, analog synth pads; the arpeggiated sequences; the gated drums (see last Monday's piece on where that specific sound came from); the sense of vast, empty space. What they built wasn't a document of the 1980s. It was a highlight reel, stripped of everything that didn't fit the mood — the guitar solos, the saxophone breaks, the orchestral bombast that were just as present in 80s film scoring as the synth pads were.

Ask a synthwave producer what makes a patch sound "authentic" and you'll get a fairly consistent gear checklist: a Roland Juno-106 for lush chorused pads, a Yamaha DX7 for glassy FM bells and that metallic bass edge, an Oberheim OB-8 or Xpander for thick analog leads, a LinnDrum or Simmons kit for the percussion. Every one of those machines is real and genuinely from the period. What's misleading is the implication that owning all of them would have made you sound "like the 80s" in 1985 — it wouldn't have. Those instruments were used across wildly different genres simultaneously: the Juno-106 shows up on new wave records, but also on straightforward pop, on gospel, on early house records being made in Chicago basements that share almost no sonic DNA with synthwave at all. The DX7 was so commercially dominant in the mid-80s — reportedly the best-selling synthesizer in history at the time — that it's on records from Whitney Houston to Tears for Fears to a thousand television jingles nobody remembers. Owning the gear didn't produce a genre. The genre is a curatorial choice about which of that gear's possible sounds to foreground and which to leave out entirely.

This is worth sitting with because it changes what "authentic" actually means for a modern producer working in this space. Buying a real Juno-106 doesn't get you the synthwave sound any more than buying a Fender Stratocaster gets you a specific genre of guitar music — the instrument was a blank canvas in its own decade, used for nearly everything. The sound is in the selection and the framing, not the hardware.

"Owning the gear didn't produce a genre. The genre is a curatorial choice about which of that gear's possible sounds to foreground — and which to leave out entirely."

The tape doesn't know it's nostalgic. It's just tape.

There's a term from cultural theory that fits this better than "nostalgia" does: hauntology, a concept the critic Mark Fisher developed and the writer Simon Reynolds applied specifically to retro-futurist music in his book Retromania. The idea, stripped of the academic framing, is that a culture can be haunted by a future it was once promised but never got — the gleaming, synthesizer-soundtracked tomorrow that 80s films kept depicting, which the actual decades since have failed to deliver. Synthwave's appeal isn't simple time-travel nostalgia for people who lived through 1985. A huge share of its audience and its producers were small children or not yet born. What they're nostalgic for isn't a lived decade — it's an imagined one, built entirely from movie soundtracks, VHS box art, and the specific fantasy of the future that 80s pop culture was selling.

That's a genuinely different emotional target than most retro genres aim at. A 90s house revival is usually made by and for people who were actually there, chasing a specific memory. Synthwave is largely made by people reconstructing a memory that was never theirs to begin with, assembled entirely from media artifacts — which is exactly why the aesthetic leans so hard on things like VHS tracking artifacts, cassette hiss, and the specific color grade of a mid-80s movie poster. Those aren't incidental decorations. They're the actual source material, arguably more central to the genre's identity than any specific chord progression.

This is where the genre's relationship to imperfection gets genuinely interesting from a production standpoint. A 1985 engineer fighting tape hiss, wow-and-flutter pitch instability, and the narrow dynamic range of a cassette deck was fighting limitations — real technical problems they'd have eliminated if the technology had let them. A 2026 producer deliberately routing a clean digital synth patch back through an actual 4-track tape machine or a VHS deck is doing the opposite: reintroducing those same limitations on purpose, because the imperfection itself has become the signifier.

This is a strange inversion once you notice it. The "flaws" of 80s recording technology — pitch drift, high-frequency rolloff, a slightly unstable stereo image — were never aesthetic choices in their own decade. They were constraints everyone was trying to engineer around. Retro-futurist producers now treat those exact constraints as the goal. A perfectly clean, perfectly in-tune digital emulation of a Juno-106 pad can be technically flawless and still sound wrong for the genre, precisely because it's missing the instability that a real tape pass would introduce. The imperfection isn't a compromise on the way to the sound. For this specific genre, it frequently is the sound.

That's also the most defensible argument for recording real material to real tape and VHS hardware rather than relying entirely on plugin emulation, whatever the workflow cost. A saturation plugin models what tape does to a signal in general. It can't model the specific, non-repeating instability of one physical tape machine on one particular afternoon — the wow that isn't quite periodic, the dropout that happens once and never again. Software approximates a category. Hardware produces one irreproducible instance of it, and for a genre built on the feeling of a specific, half-remembered artifact rather than a clean idealized past, that specificity is the entire point.

Once you accept that synthwave was never a document of the actual 1980s, the word "authentic" has to mean something more specific than "historically accurate." What it seems to actually mean, in practice, is internal consistency — every element of a track agreeing on which narrow slice of the imagined decade it's drawing from, and committing to that slice completely rather than hedging with modern production polish. A track that mixes a beautifully unstable tape-saturated pad against a pristine, hyper-quantized modern trap hi-hat pattern breaks the illusion instantly, not because either element is wrong on its own, but because they're citing two different eras at once. The genre's internal logic depends on every layer pointing at the same imagined moment.

That's a much harder production target than "sounds like the 80s," and it's why the genre rewards a curatorial mindset as much as a technical one — choosing a coherent set of reference points and building everything else to match them, rather than treating "retro" as a single interchangeable flavor to sprinkle over an otherwise modern arrangement.

A reflection of a reflection — which is, in the end, what the whole genre is.

Browse the full catalog at sonalsystem.com →

Follow us on Instagram →