--- In
emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, "widoworx" <
rihilleman@a...> wrote:
> For me, the role that the EMS500 played in the Devo Sound
was enough
> for me.
To clarify, Devo did use an EML (EML500 at least) and as far as I
know not EMS synths
>
> EMS synths are a whole different experience. They are
wonderfully
> made and you can see where the money is.
Well to Europeans they were quite reasonably priced. There is
that story of Tangerine Dream driving and taking the ferry to
England to get one after realizing they could actually afford a
proper synth.
But, there is a reason why
> you don't hear many lead lines on PF albums until the late
> seventies. Keeping a EMS in tune AND intonated is the
hardest of
> any analog synth I have ever used. Moogs, Arps and OB FVS
are all
> much easier to use.
I guess EML kept much better in tune when it came to drifting
but the 'feature' of the 101 (and I presume the 100) for doing
other than 12 notes to the octave tuning doesn't make standard
innotation easy - It would have been better if they had a switch to
either use that notes per octave knob or not. With EML's gear I
guess pre-500 or 400, playing standard equal tempered
material was possible but not exactly the quickest or easiest
thing to do either IMHO - Which brings up the 400 - was it easy to
play standard tuning on that combo and conversely, was it also
easy not to?
>
> They are great for sound effects and as a filter processor, but
they
> are a real challenge as a lead instrument. My hats off to Eno,
> Rundgren and others, but only with a Kenton Midi to CV
controller
> have I been able to use my VCS3 MKI melodically.
Yes, I think that's the concensus, though the MkII is much
improved
As for Woodstock, clearly EMS had a srtong foothold there
because the late Everett Hafner of EMSA (the US EMS
dealership) was based in the region -