Donald Tillman wrote:
> > From: "Mark Wallis" <markstuartwallis@...>
> > Sender: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Essentially - CONCEPTUALLY- it IS a Mellotron.
>
> This must be a use of the word "conceptually" that I am unfamiliar
> with.
>
It sounds like a Mellotron and looks a bit like one too. That's fairly
'conceptual' by most standards.
> You're abstracting out all the interesting stuff. The feedback from
> the touch of the keyboard, the feel of the tape under the keys, the
> ability to use pressure to control the dynamics, separate pressure
> control for individual notes ("polyphonic aftertouch"), a direct
> connection to the sound-making process as opposed to going through
> that ridiculous midi protocol, the delightfully quirky behavior of the
> tape handling mechanism, the relationship the musician has with the
> instrument's intrinsic workings that inspires the music.
>
I'm pretty sure you are speaking for yourelf here, Don. I like the sound
of (say) a Hammond, but none of that is based on the knowledge that it's
the output from a bunch of hugely amplified magnetic fields being
distorted by some little toothed wheels. The feel of the instrument
inspires almost nothing to me at all. I might ∗like∗ it, but it's not
the inspiration; that comes from the sound and knowing where to fit it
in, or how to phrase it. As a case in point, the Ian McDonald flute has
an attack and a 'per-note' phrasing that makes it almost impossible to
play anything other than some lyrical-sounding stuff. None of that comes
from the mechanics of the machine - it comes entirely from the sound.
Anyway - I think the Memotron looks and sounds like a hoot, albeit a
rather expensive one compared to (say) the M-Tron. I'm just glad that
the beauty of these sounds persist.
--
Mike Dickson (
tron@...) M400 #996
The Official Cynic of Streetly Electronics
Streetly Sample Library
http://www.blackcat.demon.co.uk/tron/