> From: "jonesalley" <jonesalley@...>
> Sender: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
>
> After reading with interest the points behind the clone debates
> over the last couple of days, what really strikes me is the
> comments about Memotrons and Mellotrons and DX-7's share a lot of
> ground. The problem with the DX-7 is the cryptic nature of the
> programming.
Well, the DX-7 is a very special case. Here we have a breakthrough
design that solves a whole bunch of problems in a creative way and the
result is a whole new canvas of voices.
Yamaha wanted to make a digital polyphonic synth, but given 1982
technology they couldn't implement digital filters because real-time
digital multiply operations were just too expensive, and they couldn't
do sampling because memory was too expensive. So they put together a
very clever implementation of Stanford CCRMA's FM synthesis that only
uses real-time adds and table lookups. This was brilliant, it broke
all preconceptions and provided whole new ways to think about
electronic music.
On the negative side, yeah, programming FM is unbelievably arcane.
It's like solving a Rubic's cube; really, you can be a move or two
from your goal and you wouldn't know it. And the primitive UI on the
DX-7 makes it like solving the Rubic's Cube through a letterbox.
Blindfolded.
And yeah, it lacks warmth. And that clangy electric piano sound was
getting annoying after appearing on way too many really bad songs.
But the thing about the DX-7 is that it wasn't trying to be something
it wasn't. FM synthesis does some things well, and there are many
things it can't do at all, and that's okay, and there are some other
things it does that nobody else can do, and that's great. The DX-7
didn't pretend to be another instrument, although FM synthesis could
mimic some standard instruments (pianos, organs, flutes, etc.) better
in some ways than most samplers.
> If an instrument requires that amount of effort to learn how to
> use and is actually counterintuitive to the already-established
> lexicon of sound generation, it eventually drives away users who
> will be attracted to something that provides similar sonic power
> with more ease of use.
Certainly. But every musical instrument has a learning curve. Some
learning curves are longer and more difficult than others, some have a
steep beginning, some have a bigger payoff than others, some might
give the player some encouraging sense of accomplishment along the
way.
Hey, at least with the DX-7 your fingers aren't left bleeding like
with the learning curve on a string bass, eh? Or your neighbors don't
burn your house down like with the learning curve on bagpipes.
Are you suggesting that modern keyboard players demand instant
gratification and are not accepting of any learning curve? That may
be so.
> A lot of the qualities of the Mellotron that make it such a
> powerful instrument could also as easily be described as
> liabilities by people who didn't find that it satisfied their
> quest for the right vibration.
Sure, but that's true of just about any musical instrument. The road
of pleasing everybody leads to mediocrity, eh?
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don@...http://www.till.com