> From: "ceccles_ca" <ecclesreinson@...>
> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:40:32 -0000
>
> If you restrict the definition, you will have a hell of a time
> deciding what IS on the MI list. If a digital sampler doesn't belong
> on the MI list, then perhaps a VCS3 doesn't belong either.
Okay, let's try an experiment... bring a musician into a room with a
digital sampler and a VCS3. Have him stand in front of each and
measure his heartbeat. That would be the Touring Test for musical
instruments. (I'm kidding. Well, maybe not.)
Y'know, I'd sure like to say that a digital sampler doesn't belong on
the Musical Instrument list, but therein lies the issue. Why bother
with the low end so much? Why be so concerned about what legitimizing
questionable stuff when you could be making better musical
instruments? I'm interested in the high end. Where is the research
to make instruments that are truly cherished by the musician? Where
is the develoment of something that will enable and inspire the next
Hendrix or Coltrane?
This is a major problem with the instrument industry; with almost 30
freaking years digital development in the music world, you'd think
that they would have provided some truly kick ass musical instruments
by now. (And that's 30 years of development subsidized by the
computer industry and powered by Moore's Law, equivalent to centuries
of development in any other field.) But no, they spend all their
efforts faking Hammonds, faking Rhodes', faking pianos, faking
Mellotrons faking violins.
There is no Hendrix or Coltrane of the digital sampler, and it's
really difficult to name a truly great solo played on a digital
machine. Compare that to the way we on this list gush over the intro
to "Watcher of the Skies".
So, yeah, I'm thankful that we have the Mellotron Archives Mark VI and
whatever Streetly is developing.
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don@...http://www.till.com