> From: "ceccles_ca" <ecclesreinson@...>
> Sender: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
>
> Always an interesting debate. I think that it has more to do with
> what a player is comfortable and familiar with.
I don't see that at all. The first time I played a Mellotron it was
hardly comfortable or familiar. "What the hell, these keys feel like
sponges!"
And I can't think of any musical instrument that worked differently
than one I'd played before that was either comfortable or familiar.
> People like Richard Barbieri, John Hawken, Pinder, McDonald,
> Banks...etc have become familiar/comfortable with modern sampler
> keyboards. McCartney, Julian Cope, Woolly Wolstenholme... etc
> prefer to use mellotrons.
Maybe so, but did their playing on digital samplers inspire you the
way their actual Mellotron playing did? Would the "Watcher of the
Skies" intro be what is without the Mellotron? Or would it even exist
at all?
> There's no right or wrong answer here Don.
I think there is... and I think there's something very profound and
significant behind the answer.
> There's nothing ridiculous about midi.
MIDI has neither the vocabulary, the resolution, nor the speed to deal
with real music. MIDI's vocabulary abstracts everthing down to
note-on and note-off events, but the music might not be limited to
just notes. Imagine any of the truly great solos played over MIDI;
I'm thinking Coltrane's "Giant Steps", Miles' "All Blues", or
Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile Slight Return". It'd be a trainwreck. And
for keyboard work, the resolution of MIDI is such that the nuances and
subtleties of the performance are missing entirely, so you really
can't tell if it's Horowitz or someone unskilled like myself playing
the piano sample over a MIDI stream.
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don@...http://www.till.com